local partnering in practice - world vision international partnering in practice.pdf · u...

Local Partnering in Practice

3WORLD VISION GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

Contents

AcronymsCBO . . . . . . . . community-based organisationCVA . . . . . . . . . Citizen Voice and ActionCWB . . . . . . . . child well-beingFBO . . . . . . . . . faith-based organisationM&E . . . . . . . . . monitoring and evaluationNGO . . . . . . . . non-governmental organisationPACE . . . . . . . . process, activities, context and effectsWV . . . . . . . . . World Vision

Tables

Acknowledgements

Figures

The material presented here builds on the experience of World Vision’s local partnering practitioners as well as that of technical teams and national,regional and support offices across World Vision, and our peers.

World Vision will continue to gather and share good practices through the Programme Effectiveness Community of Practice. We encourage programme teams and practitioners to continue to share their challenges and successes as we move forward.

Development and Programme Effectiveness Team, October 2014.

World Vision International, 800 West Chestnut Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016-3198 U.S.A.

© World Vision International 2014.

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form, except for brief excerpts in reviews, without prior permission of the publisher.

Authors: Ian de Villiers, Camilla Symes Editing: Isabel Carter, Seamus AndersonDesign and Layout: Teresa Wallace, Paula Edwards Cover Design: WVI Global Creative Services Illustrations by: Kath Copley; Ron Wheeler at CartoonWorks.com

Published by Child Development and Programme Effectiveness on behalf of World Vision International

World Vision is a Christian relief, development, and advocacy organisation dedicated to working with children, families, and communities to overcome poverty and injustice.

As followers of Jesus, World Vision is dedicated to working with the world’s most vulnerable people. World Vision serves all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.

Section 1 INTRODUCTION: GETTING READY TO PARTNER 2

Section 2 UNDERsTANDING PARTNERs 7

2.1 Possible partners 2.2 Motivations: benefits, drivers and opportunities 2.3 Risks and costs of partnership 2.4 Due diligence 2.5 Organisational assessment and capacity building 2.6 Readiness to partner 2.7 Double accountability

see also Guidance Note 1 The Decision Gate Guidance Note 2 The Collaboration space Guidance Note 3 Local Churches and other Faith Communities

Section 3 NETwORks: shARING, LEARNING & vIsIONING 17

3.1 Networks in wv’s Approach 3.2 Benefits of networks 3.3 variations 3.4 Facilitation tips

Section 4 COALITIONs: COORDINATION & COOPERATION 23

4.1 why form and sustain a coalition? 4.2 Coalitions within wv’s Approach 4.3 Coalition basics 4.4 how to build an advocacy coalition 4.5 Managing challenges in coalitions

Section 5 PARTNERshIPs AND PARTNERshIP BROkERs 31

5.1 Partnership definitions 5.2 The Partnership Broker 5.3 world vision’s role

Section 6 BUILDING A PARTNERshIP 37

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Partnering Cycle Step 3 6.3 Partnering Cycle Step 4

see also Guidance Note 4 strategic Alignment & Risk Management Guidance Note 5 Facilitating effective meetings Guidance Note 6 Negotiation and consensus building

Section 7 MANAGING AND DELIvERING IN PARTNERshIP 53

7.1 Good approaches to implementation 7.2 structuring 7.3 Mobilising resources 7.4 Delivery

Section 8 MONITORING AND EvALUATION FOR COLLABORATION 61

8.1 what needs to be measured 8.2 Principles of monitoring and evaluation needed within collaborations 8.3 when to measure: M&E in LEAP and the Partnering Cycle 8.4 Using M&E information

Section 9 sUsTAINING OUTCOMEs AND BUILDING COLLABORATION CAPACITY 69

9.1 how a group learns 9.2 Collaboration for sustaining child well-being 9.3 Partnership transitions: Exit, plan or scale up 9.4 Partner transitions and checklists


Contents


Tables

Acknowledgements

Figures


Contents


Tables

Acknowledgements

Figures


Contents


Tables

Acknowledgements

Figures


Contents


Tables

Acknowledgements

Figures

Table 1.1 skills, attitudes and learning styles for partnering 5Table 2.1 Features of the Three sectors 8Table 2.2 Drivers and benefits for partnering 9Table 3.1 Network 17 Table 3.2 Benefits of networks 19Table 4.1 Coalition 23Table 4.2 Managing challenges in coalitions 30Table 5.1 Defining a partnership 32Table 5.2 Partnership brokers can be external or internal 34Table 6.1 Assessing progress in establishing partnerships 38Table 6.2 Partnering Cycle steps 3 and 4: Outputs and Tools 40Table 6.3 A simple prioritising tool 49Table 6.4 Resource commitments tool 50Table 7.1 Five pairs for making a partnership work* 54Table 7.2 Communication Options 57Table 8.1 Tools for Collaboration M&E 62Table 9.1 Group Learning 71Table 9.2 Building a collaborative environment that can sustain child well-being. 72Table 9.3 scaling-up options 76Table 9.4 Partner transition checklists 78

Figure 5.1 The changing role of the partnership broker in the partnership cycle 33Figure 6.1 Partnering cycle stage 1: scoping and building 37Figure 7.1 A simple partnership structure 56


This series of documents provides good practices on how to work with partners in World Vision’s (WV) Development Programme Approach. Each section addresses a different

collaboration need. It is primarily designed for use by World Vision programme staff, and it can be shared with partners.

It is based on learning and experience of partnering practitioners working across the different sectors and across the world. Everything should be adapted to local need and context, based on experience, learning and capacities.

References are made to the Critical Path as this is focused on local level partnering, but the tools and practices can be used more broadly, for example in Technical Programmes.

whAT Is LOCAL PARTNERING IN PRACTICE?

INTRODUCTION: GETTING READY TO PARTNER

Local Partnering for Development Programmes: the Essentials sets out the basis for Local Partnering in Practice. “Essentials” introduces:

uWhy partner?

uPartnering for sustainable change to children’s well-being;

uThree principles (equity, transparency, and mutual benefit) as the basis of good and successful partnering practices;

uThree collaboration forms for different groups (networks, coalitions and partnerships);

uThe Partnering Cycle – how to manage partnerships.

Local Partnering in Practice explains how to implement these. The Sections are supported by Guidance Notes and Tools, and connections to the relevant steps of the Critical Path.

Box: Make sure that you have read carefully “Essentials” before working through “In Practice”. If possible, complete the emodule available at wvecampus.com too.

ThE COLLABORATION CONTExTBefore planning specific working groups and collaborations, it is important to carefully map and understand the partnering context. Tools for this are provided in Guidance Note 1 and 2. GN1, the Decision Gate, helps World Vision to plan its best approach (used at Steps 2 and 5 of the Critical Path).

GN 2 outlines different forms of collaboration, with a particular focus on the Collaboration Space. GN2 shows how to map stakeholders, power relationships and collaborations and relationships.

Section 2 helps to understand specific partners.

1


INTRODUCTION: GETTING READY TO PARTNER

1 Planning to work with partners

2 Understanding

Partners

GN1: The Decision Gate

GN2: The Collabora�on

Space

GN3: Partnering with Churches and other Faith

Communi�es4 Coali�ons

3 Networks

5 Partnerships and WV’s role

6 Scoping & Building

GN5: Facilita�ng

Effec�ve Mee�ngs

GN6: Nego�a�on and

Consensus Building

GN4: Strategic Alignment and

Risk

7 Managing and Delivering

8 Monitoring for

Collabora�on

9 Sustaining Outcomes

Partnering tools:Partnership Health CheckPartnership Benefit ToolCapacity Building for Local Partners

Partnering tools:Partnership Planning ToolPartnership Agreement Checklist

Local Partnering in Practice: How Sections, Guidance Notes and Tools relate to the Partnering Cycle

Sec�on Titles are in colour and start with a number; Guidance Notesin white boxes star�ng ‘GN’; tools are listed below the relevant Sec�ons.

Working through the Partnering Cycle

Ass

essi

ng t

hepa

rtne

ring

situ

atio

n

MobilisingReviewing

DeliveringMeasuring

StructuringRevising

Scaling

Moving on

S C O P I N G &B U I L D I N G

M A N A G I N G &M A I N T A I N I N G

R E V I E W I N G & R E V I S I N G

LONG-TERM PLANNINGSIGNING AN AGREEMENT

S U S T A I N I N GO U T C O M E S

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

Building

IGNING AN S AGR

Planning

S C OB U

Identifying

Scoping

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12


Table 1: Skills, attitudes and learning styles for partnering

NETWoRkS, CoALITIoNS AND PARTNERShIPSsections 3 to 7 describe how to set up and run these three different types of collaboration.

section 8 is to help with monitoring and evaluation for any collaboration, focused on the ‘review and revise’ quadrant of the Partnering Cycle.

Section 9 describes how to ‘sustain outcomes’. It includes the final quadrant of the Partnering Cycle. It looks at how collaborative capacity is built for sustaining child well-being.

LEARNING FOR PARTNERING PRACTITIONERsA competent partnering practitioner needs to match knowledge with skills and the right attitudes as shown in the following table. Local Partnering Training is available through WV offices to enhance partnering skills. Local Partnering in Practice provides the knowledge base for Local Partnering Training. More resources can be found in wv’s Integrated Competency Development framework.

INTRODUCTION: GETTING READY TO PARTNER 1

Think About? what knowledge, skills and attitudes have you seen in good partnering?


Careful understanding of partners, plans, resources and ways of working

together is essential. This section introduces a number of helpful ideas to help understand partners. These include their characteristics, their motivation, their capacity and their readiness to partner. some important tools are provided; the Due diligence tool and the ‘ready to partner’ checklist.

Partnerships thrive when the partners see that they can do more together than they could do separately. They create synergies, influence and leverage that one organisation could not do alone. Achieving this takes a careful understanding not just of how partners work together, but also of the unique strengths and needs of each partner, and the risks to them of relationship.

2.1 Possible partners2.2 Motivations: benefits, drivers and opportunities2.3 Risks and costs of partnership2.4 Due diligence2.5 Organisational assessment and capacity building2.6 Readiness to partner2.7 Double accountability

OVERVIEW

2.1POss IBLE PARTNERs

There are very many possible partners. To help understand them, they can be categorised according to three sectors - business, government and civil society. Each sector has a different, basic set of rules

(their ways of being and doing) for organisations and groups.

The table below is a simple description of the three sectors. It is an idealised generalisation, and based on the likely situation in a democratic, capitalist country. In a non-democratic country, there will be differences to all three sectors, but there will always remain the functions of economic system and state, and usually some way of ordering civil society for social goals.

This section covers:

U N D E R s TA N D I N G PA RT N E R s

“Better Together”

22


The table shows that the way of operating in each sector is very different. There is also a huge diversity within each of the three sectors. It is worth taking time to think through how different groups may see the world, both in terms of what the group wants, and what makes an enabling or disabling environment for it.

It also becomes clear that no sector is inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’. A civil society organisation may be just as discriminatory and disempowering as an exploitative business or a government unresponsive to service users. Bringing people out of poverty requires all three sectors to work well. This is one reason for the focus on good governance in poverty reduction strategies. Good governance is about getting the three sectors to work well, starting with the framework for ordering society.

The distinction between the three sectors is increasingly blurred as governments, businesses and civil society groups may co-operate or compete, or do both to fulfil social goals. For example, think of how a health care system may comprise health services provided privately, regulated by government, and NGOs competing for government contracts.

fEaTuRE: BuSInESS gOVERnmEnT CIVIL SOCIETy

aLSO knOWn aS:

‘the market’,the economic system.

‘the state’, law and social systems to create order

Voluntary sector, charities, NGOs, third sector

DESCRIPTIOn

The economic system provides people with goods and services as consumers, and incomes and employment as workers.

The state represents the collective authority of society, able to enforce its decisions over the whole of society to ensure that no single group can maximize its own benefits by threatening the rights of others.

A huge, diverse sector of groups that depends on voluntary relationships between individuals based on non-financial goals.

mOTIVaTIOn

Profit (largely measured as financial profit).

social order (large public goals – impartially applied to the whole population).

Ethical goals or solidarity (note that these are not necessarily public goals, but may be for a particular interest group).

BaSIC WayS Of RELaTIng

Competing Coordinating Cooperating

InCLuDES:

agriculturecommerce and shopsmanufacturing building and infrastructurefinance and bankingservices and leisuretransportother industriesbusiness associations

executive – the lawmakersjudiciary – the law enforcersadministration – implementers (includes departments, civil service, national and local government)

political parties, participatory organisations, faith communities, non-governmental organisations, professional associations

RELaTIOnShIPS?

To customersTo employeesTo other businesses (buyers, sellers, partners)To government regulators

To population (through democracy and service users)Coercion to create order (such as payment of taxes)

To beneficiariesTo membersTo advocacy targets

Table 2.1 features of the Three Sectors



2.2MOTIvATIONs: BENEFITs AND DRIvERs

Every partner has reasons for wanting to partner – or not. It is important for facilitators and other partners to know the basic pressures any partner is under, and what is driving them towards partnership.

Motivations to partner can be either ‘drivers’ or ‘benefits’.

Drivers are things that will push a group into partnership, whether it wants to or not, just like a donkey being encouraged forward with a stick. such things would be donors requiring partnership, or customers requiring a business to engage in some social responsibility activities.

If at a group is only partnering because of ‘push’ factors or drivers, but does not really believe in the benefits, then poor partnering behaviours are likely to result because the motivation is mainly external. This may also occur when funding is linked to engaging in partnering: the organisation ‘does what it is told’ by joining the partnership, but is basically unready to be a good partner.

Benefits, on the other hand, are things that pull a group into partnership (the carrot for a donkey!). They include cost-effectiveness, risk-sharing, access to information and expertise, innovation, enhanced impact, organisational learning, reputational benefits and enhanced legitimacy.

drivers benefits

gOVERnmEnT BuSInESS nOT fOR PROfIT

• being responsive to local need• delivery effectiveness and reach• cost effectiveness• search for innovative solutions• implementing regulations• improving good governance• building constituency support

• market development• product development• licence to operate• risk mitigation• reputation gain• competitive differentiation• demonstrating social• responsibility

• achieving development goals• wider stakeholder engagement• greater reach and impact• resource leverage• improving transparency• reducing aid dependence• building community self-reliance

Table 2.2. Drivers and benefits for partnering

Discussion questions? Discuss which benefits are attractive for WV in partnering?

? What benefits would be most helpful in our situation ?

U N D E R s TA N D I N G PA RT N E R s 2


2.3RIsks AND COsTs OF COLLABORATION

Costs and risks are real issues in partnering, and always need to be factored in when a partner or facilitator thinks about the benefits and commitment of any partner. There is the actual cost of partnership;

meetings, planning, sharing (sometimes these costs are called ‘transaction costs’). Nobody wants to invest time and money into something where other partners either cannot, or do not play their roles. Reasons for a failing partnership could include:

uan NGO doing only what its donor tells it to do

ua business not meeting its commitments once it has its name on a leaflet to improve its image

ua government group pulling out because it thinks a project is not a vote-winner.

The list below is a summary of the range of possible risks in partnering:

ufinancial risk – unexpected costs arriving

ureputation risk – associating with an undesirable group or an undesirable activity or product;

uresource conflicts – two NGOs who could be great partners with many synergies, end up fighting over the same donor

uover-reliance on one partner to deliver objectives and activities for others) involves loss of control

uthe need to gain assurance on how well the partnership and partner organisations

are managing risk for themselves.

It can be hard, in a meeting, to say to a partner ‘we don’t trust you’. So it is important to find a simple and transparent mechanism to identify the risks that are being faced, so the next part provides a way of assessing individual partners. (Guidance Note 4 looks at a simple risk management tool for multi-stakeholder partnerships).

minimise risk with different Collaboration formssection 3.1 and 3.2 of “Local Partnering for Development Programmes” describe different forms of collaboration. If the risks shown by due diligence show that Partnership is not appropriate, then working together through networks or coalitions might be possible as described in sections 3 and 4. If the Decision Gate (Guidance Note 1) shows that the context is mobilise or low on ‘catalyse and build’, then organizational capacity building approaches will be needed. Partnerships will be less ambitious until there has been a period of capacity building.



2.4DUE DILIGENCE

‘Due diligence’ is a form of risk management; the process focuses on generating information that enables risk factors to be better understood. It involves checking out the organisation’s position in a number of areas, which if problematic, could have negative consequences for wv, the proposed collaboration or both.

There are extremely helpful guidelines provided for due diligence in the Collaboration and Partnering Community of Practice on wv Central; key checklists from that are included here.

some weaknesses of a partner could put the partnership at risk, or even the other partners. Due diligence is a process to seek to minimise that risk by looking at particular aspects of the partners to ensure that they reach some kind of minimum standard. Where financial transfers from WV are included, it is important to consider the financial guidelines applicable in WV’s Development Programme Approach, taking note of whether it is sub-contracting or sub-granting.

Within any programme, there are two big questions regarding due diligence:

jWhat questions must be asked of a potential partner?This is relatively easy to answer, and templates and questions are provided that wv uses. The full checklist

is provided in [the] Appendix.

There are five main areas of risk that would indicate that WV would not want to partner.:

1. the abuse or exploitation of children

2. any illegal activities

3. corruption including financial mismanagement

4. other human rights violations

5. environmental damage and degradation.

It is also necessary to check for compatibility of financial standards.

WV should expect itself to be the subject of due diligence by other organisations. It is good partnering practice and should not be seen as a threat.


Poten&al partners check each other out

Of course, what would be helpful

to know?

Can you tell me about where your money comes from?


with such concern, due diligence can become an empowering and trust-building process. where partners have great potential but are currently weak, it may be that organisational capacity building is included in a shared project (or even precedes a shared project).

“Who are you to ask us so many questions?”

At every stage of partnership, the facilitator needs to carefully explain the process and the expectations of each partner. Due diligence processes between partners with very different power can be very sensitive, so the facilitators and partners must work together to find ways to make it transparent and safe.

Discussion questions? If wv is a partner, what questions does it need to ask of others?

? what questions does wv expect other partners to ask of itself?

? how can such questions be asked in a sensitive and appropriate way?

? what important issues should be checked because they may change over time?

kHow can these questions be asked in a positive way that builds for long-term relationships?

It should be becoming apparent through this Primer that partnering is not just about achieving outcomes more efficiently through practical collaborations. The partners themselves matter; they are the ones that will (probably) be in the community long after WV leaves.

Any due diligence needs to include a careful understanding of the role of that organisation, in the community, with respect to child well-being in the past, now and its potential for the future. Good partnering and development practice by wv will – so far as is possible – lead partners to greater commitment and capacity for child well-being.

Good use of the Critical Path should reduce any partner’s due diligence requirements from becoming a ‘blunt instrument’, that reduces trust in each other and the partnering processes. In particular, inappropriate use of due diligence can reinforce the power imbalances across a partnership.



2.5ORGANIsATIONAL AssEssMENT

understanding the capacities of the organisations involved is essential to help design how big or ambitious a shared partnership project can be.

Building partnerships in a primary focus area will often engage groups that are not very strong and need a degree of organisational capacity building (OCB).

There are two questions for partnership building:

The ability of the prospective partner to contribute consistently and effectively in the partnership needs to be assessed. This is different from the willingness and trust of the people concerned, but an objective question of capacity.

There are a range of assessment tools that may be helpful if one or more possible partners are weak in particular areas. Assessment may show that a group would struggle to participate in partnership, in which case a capacity building project may be appropriate for future activities. However, if a very specific capacity building initiative could help the group to join the partnership as an effective partner, consider making this initiative part of the shared project.

In organisational capacity assessment and capacity building, world vision can take a mentoring or catalysing role. wv does not have to be “the assessor”. self-assessment or working in teams from different partners may well be preferable, building toward transparency and trust.

LEARN MORE:You can find a range of resources for Capacity Building for Local Partners on World Vision Central. including those specially adapted for use in collaboration and the Development Programme Approach.

jorganisational capacity assessments —

How fit is the organisation to play its role in a partnership?

korganisational capacity building —

Where an organisation can contribute to a partnership, how could capacity building take place to help it become strong enough to play that role reliably?



2.6READINEss TO PARTNER

There are many possible and genuine concerns about other partners that may come from within a partner representative’s own organisation. some relate to the shared social goals; some to the organisation’s own

sustainability; and some to individuals’ needs:

ucontract requirements not delivered by other partnersupartnership standards not metuchasing rewards rather than local priorities

upartner failure during the partnership project

ufailures leading to excess costsuinvestment lost on non-productive schemes

uless employment security if the partnership changes things too much

uchanging organisational prioritiesufront line efficiencies not captured uimposition of targets – rather than

negotiation of manageable targets

uloss of control over staff and the service, but with retention of accountability (in other words, individual groups being blamed when the partnership or other partners do not deliver)

uloss of public ethosuloss of ownership by those who don’t run the partnership, especially smaller groups

uincompatible culturesuusing partnership as political football.

some of these questions may be covered through the due diligence processes but organisations, or key individuals within those organisations, may still have these concerns. Unless they are addressed, that organisation will be a weaker partner.



1 ‘Collaboration Challenge workbook’, Drucker Foundation

The following questions can be used as a very quick way of reviewing whether such concerns are being met. They can be used to make a judgement about how ready any particular partner is, to enter into partnership.

A partnership broker can use these questions to build shared understanding, and develop trust and ownership:

uhow well does each partner understand the other’s business?

uwhat are the missions, strategies, and values of each partner?

uwhat are the areas of current and potential overlap?

uhow can each partner help the other accomplish its mission?

uTo what extent is the collaboration a strategic tool for each partner?

uhave the partners engaged in shared visioning about the future?

uwhat resources of each partner are of value to the other?

uWhat specific benefits will accrue to each partner from the collaboration?

uDo benefits outweigh costs and risks?

uwhat social value can be generated by the alliance?

uWhat new resources, capabilities, and benefits can be created by the collaboration?

uAre resource and capability transfer two-way?

uAre benefits equitably balanced between the partners?

with due diligence, as organisations journeying together through the Critical Path will gain a shared understanding of several of these questions. when developing a formal partnership, it will be important to address any outstanding questions.



2.7DOUBLE ACCOUNTABILITY

When there is a great partnership opportunity, and someone in the organisation really wants to be part of it, it may still not work because the organisation is not ready. It is important to be able to assess

this internally, before rushing into commitments that the organisation is not ready for.

Every partner has its own pressures, and every person representing a partner has pressures on them - to the other partners - and to their own organisation. This is called dual responsibility or double accountability. Sometimes it can be a difficult tightrope to walk. It is important to help the representatives understand it for themselves, and for the partnership to be able to deal with it. so far as is possible, good partnerships have champions, advocating for the partnership in strategic positions within each partner.

‘Double accountability’ describes how any representative in a partnership has two accountabilities; namely, to the partnership (and other partners), and to the organisation that they are representing. some aspects of double accountability are positive; the partnership may help their organisation succeed, or the partnership may help the representative succeed in their responsibilities.

Other parts of the double accountability may create tensions or even conflicts of interest. The most basic ‘conflict of interest’ is when the representative has more tasks to do than time, some for the partnership and some within their own organisation. They have to make choices between giving time to the partnership or to their organisation. Many other conflicts may arise, and it is then that the organisation’s commitment to partnership will be tested. having leadership, key individuals and ‘champions’ able to work with the representative in reconciling the dual accountability tensions, will help that person meet both sets of obligations.



NET wORks: shARING , LEARNING & v Is IONING

networks are one of the simplest forms of collaboration to establish but their impact on CwB can be

substantial. with guidance and good facilitation, networks can provide many benefits to their members and provide a sound basis for further work and collaborations.

OVERVIEW

3.1 Networks in wv’s Approach3.2 Benefits of networks3.3 variations3.4 Facilitation tips


networks are great for information sharing and relationship building. They help participants in their individual purposes toward child well-being outcomes. At the same time, a vision for child well-being

can be developed, as values and understanding evolve. A network requires low levels of commitment and material resource. It can be make big differences to individual participants through encouragement, new relationships, ideas and technical information. All these can change the ways that they do things, or even their whole approach to this work. Instead of feeling like ‘more meetings’, a well-run network with a clear and evolving goal, can be a very powerful form of collaboration for promoting sustained child well-being outcomes.

Networks are a simple form of collaboration that have very little shared decision-making. Joining a network requires: having common interest with the goal; sharing enough core values of the network; and a willingness to share information and build new relationships.

InTRODuCTIOn

SymBOL: DEfInITIOn: SymBOL:

keywords: vision, information sharing

Definition: A group of individuals or organisations who, on a voluntary basis, exchange information, to some extent coordinate actions, and otherwise explore together an area of common interest or need.

The strength and nature of the relationships in networks can vary a great deal. However, organisations in a network, generally link to share information and promising practices, and build up understanding of a common interest or shared vision.

They may also coordinate activities and share promising practice.

Table 3.1. nETWORk

3


In the Critical Path, a child well-being network can grow to have some, or all, of the following functions:

uannual meeting that continues the agenda developing from the initial child well-being summit

umeeting place for working groups following steps 5, 6 and 7 (individual collaborations)

umeeting place for partners involved in sponsorship and CwB monitoring

uongoing meeting place through step 8 that maintains an ongoing ability to learn and share

ua basis for collaborative planning and action beyond the life of the programme.

In the ‘JOIn’ decision-gate mode, other networks may exist which may not include certain sectors (such as the private sector), have a wider geographic remit, or only include one child well-being sector, such as health. The first choice would be to work inside and with such an existing network. If there are big gaps, the programme team needs to agree how closely the goals of the existing network reflect the child well-being needs of the primary focus area, and whether creating a new network would compete too much for member time and resources. It may be that other collaborations (such as a smaller partnership) can fill gaps adequately.

NETwORks: shARING, LEARNING & vIs IONING

3.1N E T wORks IN w v ’ s APPROAC h

after the child well-being summit, stakeholders and wv may create a network as a way to continue building relationships and share information regarding child well-being priorities. A child well-being

network is likely to have a holistic view of children and may cover two or more sectors, such as health, nutrition, education or child protection. Only one such network is likely in a primary focus area.


Table 3.2 Benefits of networks

3.2BENEFITs OF NETwORks

BEnEfIT DESCRIPTIOn

sharing skills and experience

• Networks can facilitate the exchange of skills and experiences. As expertise and knowledge is shared through meetings, workshops, materials and collaborative programmes, the overall competence and efficiency of members is increased.

sharing and coordinating information

• Networks can enable the sharing and co-ordinating of information, which leads to less duplication of work and efforts. As a result, progress is achieved faster and the overall impact is greater.

Providing opportunities or new links

• Networks can improve communication and links between different organisations and individuals; not just between network members, but with others who would otherwise have limited opportunity to interact. For example, networks can bring together top policy makers and grassroots organisations.

sharing of resources and materials

• Networks can facilitate the distribution and strategic use of resources and materials. Networks can bring together those with resources and those in need.

shared awareness of need and vision

• Networks can create an increased awareness that others in the same field of work have similar concerns and challenges. Thus networks can create a sense of belonging and identity among a disparate group of people and organisations, where mutual encouragement, motivation and joint action are fostered.

Forum for collaborative initiatives

• Networks can provide a platform for members to identify and engage in collaborative initiatives. Thus costs are reduced, over-stretched resources are stewarded wisely and manpower is maximised.

Learning from local experience

• Networks can help avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ and can lead to redistribution of efforts according to need, leading to less waste.

Platform for advocacy initiatives

• Networks can provide the critical mass needed for local, national and international advocacy, action and policy change.

Encouragement to enhanced standards

• Networks can provide a source of peer support and professional recognition, whereby members encourage one another to attain higher standards of care, accountability and professionalism.

sustained vision and values for child well-being

• Meetings and sharing new information relating to child well-being or child protection issues, provide the opportunity to increase learning about technical skills and values relating to child well-being, and deepen the participants’ individual and shared responsibilities for children.

3NETwORks: shARING, LEARNING & vIs IONING


Discussion questions? how actively do members want to engage with each other?

? how much does the programme team want to catalyse a neutral body to take ownership of child well-being goals for the community?

? how relevant to the members needs could such a network be?

? what might be gained through working together?

3.3vARIATIONs

a child well-being network will have many possible variations. These may include the following:

uThe network may be facilitated by a staff member seconded from an organisation, a relevant government agency, or by a network member acting as ‘secretariat’ or co-ordinator, or, in a very active network, by a dedicated staff member.

ua transparently-run steering committee should support the facilitation and direction of the network.

uThere may be membership fees and criteria (such as a child protection policy) or there may simply be a list of organisations invited to a meeting.

uThere may be a newsletter (or in an urban or widespread network, even a website).

uThe network may run capacity-building events or provide an on-going information sharing role through the year, or only do irregular events.

NETwORks: shARING, LEARNING & vIs IONING


3.4FACILITATION TIPs

uThe goal of a network needs to be established by participatory means by the appropriate members. Appropriateness will be defined by the boundaries of the network. This means that boundaries (in terms of geography, issues, or other criteria), need to be established very early to avoid confusion later. It may be a Primary Focus Area, or if there are not many members, possibly a Programme Impact Area.

uEven with a loose form of collaboration, remembering the three principles of equity, transparency and mutual benefit is important. Equity can be built with something as simple as a payment for participation in the regular network meetings (to pay for the costs of room hire and refreshments). Another possibility is to rotate venues between different members, highlighting each member’s commitment and ownership of the network.

ua network can support organisations which impact on child well-being but for one reason or another cannot participate in working groups for steps 5 and 6. The network will ensure they remain connected to new initiatives and capacity building programmes. A network meeting could provide a new way into a developing collaboration, or if a member has finished their engagement in a particular partnership, then it provides a way for them and their resource/expertise to remain connected.

uThe network can be a basis for on-going relationships, values and vision which makes for sustainable outcomes at the community and enabling environment levels (see handbook, p7).

Discussion questions? how can you encourage the sharing of information and other inputs beyond network meetings?

? what kinds of agendas do you see in networks during their monthly or annual planning? Do these plans lead to increased support for participating organisations?

? how do network agendas promote values and vision for sustained child well-being? what features of those networks could be helpful models for others?

3NETwORks: shARING, LEARNING & vIs IONING


This section defines coalitions and looks at their advantages for promoting child rights and child well-being. various

roles for coalitions in wv’s Development Programme Approach are examined, before describing a simple approach for starting and managing a coalition. Checklists are provided for processes, monitoring and reviewing and troubleshooting in coalitions.

OVERVIEW

4.1 why form and sustain a coalition?4.2 Coalitions within wv’s Approach4.3 Coalition basics4.4 how to build an advocacy coalition4.5 Managing challenges in coalitions


Coalitions are a simple structural mechanism for several groups, who are working toward common social goals and need, to find ways to co-ordinate their activities to achieve greater impact. Less

mutual accountability and formalisation of structures is required than in a partnership, and so the risks of cooperation are minimised. however, there is enough communication and sharing for the advantages of speaking with a common voice or acting in harmony, to be realised. Thus the two main reasons for coalitions are increased influence and efficiency.

Coalitions often develop from the grassroots actions of a community which wants to address a problem that is not recognised by the organized leadership of the community. They may be organised to give more power to groups which are under-represented or underserved by a public body.

Many of the processes are similar to those for Partnerships, but are applied differently. study of the partnerships section will help in facilitating and using the right tools for developing a coalition.

InTRODuCTIOn

SymBOL: DEfInITIOn: nOTES:

keywords: coordination, cooperation, influence

Definition: An active relationship between organisations to enhance each one’s contribution to a common or complementary aim through co-ordination and co-operation. It requires some level of agreement; benefits and risks are mainly shared.

Will include some coordination of activities and plans; cooperation (which can include sharing of resources and expertise); development of shared standards and developing a common agenda and plan on specific advocacy issues.

A coalition may have a long-term vision, or a short-term goal as its focus.

Table 4.1. COaLITIOn

COALITIONs: COORDINATION & COOPERATION 4


4.1whY FORM AND sUsTAIN A COALITION?

Below is a list of the possible benefits of forming a coalition to promote child wellbeing and rights:u Catalysing change – bringing together those with a common interest.

u Credibility and authority – achieving a critical mass of voices, including participation of most vulnerable.

u Focus and efficiency – allowing all organisation’s actions to be co-ordinated.

u Ensuring civil society voices are heard in policy development.u Accessing specific experience – a coalition is able to bring together key information and

experience vital for effective advocacy cases,

u matching expertise to need – bringing the expertise to work with needs identified by the coalition.

u Shared measurement – maximising the alignment of activities of all partners.anD:

u Coalitions can provide protection for members, particularly for organisations that might be vulnerable if challenged on their own.

u Coalitions enhance the capacities of individual members through the sharing of knowledge, skills and experiences in promoting child rights.

u The public presence and activities of coalitions raises awareness of children’s well-being priorities.

u Coalitions can be a useful means for donors to channel funding to a range of organisations for childrens’ rights work.

u Coalitions can play a key role in stimulating change from a welfare orientation to a human rights orientation among organisations working with, or on behalf ,of children.

COALITIONs: COORDINATION & COOPER ATION

4.2COALITIONs wIThIN wv’s APPROACh

Coalitions help civil society groups, both formal and informal, to organise together for long-term change for child well-being. As with other forms of collaboration, they can be valuable in ensuring that the

voices of the most vulnerable are listened to and promoted in civil society. In a coalition this will be best achieved when the most vulnerable children and people groups are explicitly included as coalition members. Guidelines for their inclusion should be followed to ensure they are deliberately supported and empowered to play a full role in the coalition.

Such coalitions can be sustained for some time if they have significant and attractive goals. They provide a way of getting groups to choose to co-ordinate their activities, thus maximising their impact.

A coalition may not have enough members at the primary focus area to be viable, but can provide a very helpful interface of groups in the programme impact area to relate, in the first place to government, and then possibly to business and larger NGOs. If there is a significant shared issue, such coalitions may find ways of working at district, state or national levels.

To enable this, wv teams will need to be proactive in ensuring that equitable mechanisms for the most vulnerable are developed in the coalitions, building the necessary capacities of groups; and secondly to support the widening reach of coalitions at higher levels.


Discussion questions? what circumstances could make a local programme team think that it is the right time to

facilitate a conversation about starting a coalition?

? what steps could you take to make sure that it is seen as meeting a shared need?

? what can you do to ensure that it is not just seen as a process driven by world vision?

4

4.3COA L IT I O N B A s I C s

identity

goals

representatives

communications

World Vision’s role

indicators

A coalition needs to have a very clear identity to enable it to speak out with clear messages and advocacy positions, on any particular issue. Each member needs to be fully aware of these so that when the coalition representative declares the coalition position to policy makers, it is fully supported and backed-up by members.

To gain confidence and credibility, it is wise for coalitions to start small in either their goals or their numbers of members. Clear articulation of these goals is essential. For example; ‘our goal is that every school in the coalition area has facilities to enable physically disabled children to join normal education’.

The coalition needs named representatives. This can be a leader or coordinator of the coalition, or a member appointed to that function. similarly, the administrative function (sometimes called the secretariat) of the coalition, needs to have enough capacity. This can be hosted by a coalition member, or members may decide the coalition should have its own office.

Building trust, assuring on-going mutual benefit, keeping motivated and committed as well as successful day-to-day coalition activities - all these depend on good, regular, communication. The facilitator can catalyse this, but needs to educate members to communicate well together.

wv needs to pay great care to choosing its role in coalitions: catalysing and facilitating; funding a ‘third party’ as a coalition facilitator; or even funding a coalition member to host the facilitation function. It can also be particularly helpful for wv to provide capacity building for the coalition in how to work, especially in ensuring deliberate representation of the most vulnerable groups.

Related to the goals, a coalition needs to find simple shared indicators of progress that all all coordinating organisations can relate to, if possible. Making good indicators helps in three ways:• in showing overall progress to the goal• in showing how each organisation is contributing to the goal• in showing the value of being part of the coalition to each coalition member.

If organisations map their progress using the same set of indicators and outcomes, it rapidly becomes obvious which activities are mutually-reinforcing, and which are not. This is key to learning. It also helps individual organisations play to their strengths. They can be valued by funders or other stakeholders or coalition members, for what they are really good at.



4.4hOw TO B U ILD A COAL IT ION

BUILDING ThE COALITION

PLANNING ThE COALITION

1

2

Invite possible members, such as working group members from the child well-being summit, to a meeting with some prepared outline purposes, so potential member are ready to discuss a shared vision, key mutual benefits from working together, and potential contributions.

Once there is broad agreement on the need for a coalition, establish a working group to co-ordinate the following process with coalition members, in a way that allows them to contribute their expertise to the overall analysis.

These initial tasks need to be facilitated:

uCoordinating an analysis exercise, developing a format, setting up the timetable and methodology.

uscrutinising particular issues and possible options.

uEngaging all possible coalition members to study areas where they have some knowledge and contribute their expertise to the overall analysis.

In the critical path much of the above data and information will have been found during step 4 and this can be used as a foundation. The following then need to be jointly discussed and agreed:

uDetermine the vision for the coalition – what is the long-term goal?

uwhat needs to change, what is the nature of this desired change, and what is the coalition’s legitimacy and role in that change?

uwhat strategies will the coalition use, (for example, capacity-building) to achieve and maintain child well-being, policy changes, or to develop child rights?

uHow will the work of the coalition benefit the individual member organisations in achieving their own objectives?

uhow will organisations measure their joint impact on the overall problem?

uwhat sMART (strategic, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) goals are there for coalition actions?



4MANAGING ThE COALITION ACTIvITIEs

sTRUCTURING ThE COALITION

3

4

Once the coalition is up and running there are a number of issues to consider to ensure it is managed successfully. These include:

uEnsuring a transparent process for agreeing specific advocacy goals and making statements

uClearly identifying possible contributions from each member (building equity)

uMaking needs clear to all members

uEstablishing good communication processes

uAgreeing how to evaluate outcomes and impact (expected or unexpected consequences

uEnhancing and assessing learning.

without a transparent process for agreeing advocacy goals and speaking out, members may feel the coalition is not speaking for them; they may not be happy and probably will drop out.

Plan special occasions to recognise the contributions of members. symbolic gestures can be very motivating.

The coalition will probably need four distinct subgroups. They may take various names; the following are typical but others can be used.

j Participatory, transparent membership: the group that will jointly determine vision for the coalition, and probably its specific goals and wider objectives.

k A facilitation team responsible for facilitating the processes and work of the coalition. This group must be transparently responsible to the coalition membership. The facilitation team leadership can be rotated, to build up shared ownership. however, it is important not to lose skilled and committed facilitators in the process. It is important to have enough high-level people as champions for the coalition who are able to influence other organisations.

l Task groups, drawn from members, who carry out the work of the coalition, whether in research or action. They are responsible to each other, then to the coordinating committee, then to the general assembly.

m Lead agencies or task group leaders, who are responsible for facilitating the work of the task group. It is important that the task group leaders are well connected to the facilitation team.

Coordination should be very much ‘behind the scenes’, allowing members to do the actual work and feel that they create the success. This does not mean the co-ordination is lazy or inactive, but rather that it is skillful and member-focused.

In many instances of effective coalition, one member committed to providing facilitation is seen as critical to that coalition’s success.



MEAsURING AND REvIEwING ThE COALITION5

Memberparticipation

Coordination

Resources

Measuringsuccess

Relationships

Here are some key monitoring questions to help examine the health of a coalition.

1. how many (what percentage) members have signed up to the vision and the specific goals of the coalition?

2. how many members contribute time towards coalition goals?3. how many members contribute in cash or in kind for the work of the

coalition?4. how many members are actively involved in task groups, planning meetings

or similar?5. Can each member describe the added value that participation in the

coalition brings to their group or organisations?

6. Are there enough resources for essential co-ordination?7. Does coordination achieve the clear allocation of tasks, and mutual

understanding of who is responsible for what?8. Do the coordinating functions compete with the functions of individual

member’s coordination? 9. Does the coalition leadership have a mandate to act, which is clear and

widely supported through the membership?10. Is coordination treated as a learning process, and is it responsive to meet

emerging situations and membership needs?

11. Are the resource requirements for carrying out the coalition’s work clearly established?

12. what measures are in place to harness resources both internally and externally?

13. how many of the resources are made available?14. Are collective decisions respected and abided to, by members?

15. what planned activities have been carried out?16. have their objectives and outcomes been achieved?17. Do measuring activities lead to learning processes and allow changes?

18. what planned activities have been carried out?19. have twhat is the coalition’s public image in the community and with

immediate decision-makers?20. What is the nature of the coalition’s relationship with significant

organizations and special interest groups? how do they perceive the coalition?

21. Does the coalition have appropriate links to decision-makers and other civil society organisations at least the 2 next levels up (such as district, state or city)?

22. Are there ‘competing’ organizations, networks or groups? what is the coalition’s association with them?



4What is the difference between a coalition and a partnership?The major difference is that joining a coalition is a broad participation toward a vision for child well-being that may be long term through coordination or cooperation. It has relatively low resource commitment Joining a partnership is about contributing specific resources to a tangible objective, and likely to be shorter-term. There are many common facilitation skills for both, as coalitions and partnerships are member-led, and require deliberate building up of ownership, shared planning, and empowering of members.

4.5M A N AG I N G C h A LLE N G E s

Coalitions where several organisations seek to speak or even act with a shared voice, have many challenges. The main challenge is distrust in the process by which the coalition speaks for the members. Individual

members may question if their voice and interests are adequately represented, or if their own concerns are being left out? The table below suggests some ways in which that may occur, and points to some strategies to enable a coalition to succeed (already covered in 9.4 and 9.5).



Table 4.2. managing challenges in coalitionsPOSSIBLE ChaLLEngES STRaTEgIES TO mInImISE

Coalitions are vulnerable to divisions, such as conflicts between members as a result of competition or lack of trust. Personality conflicts, especially in leadership, can also weaken the network.

• Transparent, member-led process toward choosing leadership positions in the coalition.

• Identify possible conflicts and find a shared policy to address genuine problems of competition.

Difficulty in sustaining the active interest and support of members, often because member organisations lack an expressly defined commitment to the coalition, or because of competing demands.

• Clarity for members on what the expectations for membership or participation are.

• Clear coalition vision and goals.

Tensions may exist between the interests of individual members and that of the coalition as a whole. If not managed well, the two may come into conflict or at least prove incompatible.

• Allow for the possibility for joining and leaving where appropriate, consider a looser collaboration form, or provide temporary opt-outs.

Due to worthwhile, but competing demands, coalition work is not always a top priority for some members. In such cases members are unable or less inclined to commit the necessary resources for the successful completion of tasks.

• Ensure that members understand the value-add to them (their part of the mutual benefit).

• Check that coalition plans are budgeted in terms of time and resources (not just financial) when priorities are being set.

Disparities in the size and influence of member organisations can lead to tensions within coalitions. Larger members that actively participate generally have more resources and time to commit to the coalition; consequently their agenda becomes more dominant.

• Careful development of equity for all organisations and groups.

• Ensure a clear, member-led process so that larger members cannot automatically set the agenda.

• Even if larger members do get more say, ensure that there is a transparent and equitable process about that.

social policy or child rights work may attract relatively little donor support; consequently coalitions often have difficulty finding funding.

• Use member facilities to reduce costs (for example, hosting of meetings or provision of facilitation or secretariat)

• Provide careful explanations to raise fees.

Direct involvement of children is usually weak and minimal, due largely to coalitions’ lack of information and experience on how to integrate them in a meaningful way.

• Provide capacity building for both organisations and children’s groups so that meaningful participation of young people, especially the most vulnerable can be assured.

• Negotiation of coalition values.

Coalitions are not immune to wider societal forces. In some countries, coalition members’ external interests (for example, political and religious association) affect the dynamics within the coalition in negative ways.

• Use principles of transparency to ensure that hidden agendas do not drive, or are not seen to drive, the coalition agenda.



This section begins a more in-depth exploration of partnerships. It includes:

• Definition of partnership;

• Introducing the partnership broker;

• The roles of World Vision in partnership.

The Partnering Cycle and the Critical Path both allow the development of understanding and vision between potential partners, over a period of time. This allows potential partners to build trust in each other and in the partnership process. Careful negotiation is then needed to match resources, needs, capacities and child well-being priorities to proceed toward establishing clear goals for a shared project. A partnership broker uses their skills and knowledge about partnership to facilitate this process. to do this. sections 6 to 9 look in more detail at different aspects of brokering:

6. Planning and building a partnership

7. Managing and delivering in partnership

8. Monitoring and evaluation for collaboration

9. sustaining Outcomes

5.1 Partnership definitions5.2 The Partnership Broker5.3 world vision’s role

OVERVIEW


PARTNERshIPs AND PARTNERshIP BROkERs 5

MobilisingReviewing

DeliveringMeasuring

StructuringRevising

Scaling

Moving on

S C O P I N G &B U I L D I N G

M A N A G I N G &M A I N T A I N I N G

R E V I E W I N G & R E V I S I N G

LONG-TERM PLANNINGSIGNING AN AGREEMENT

S U S T A I N I N GO U T C O M E S

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

Building

Planning

Identifying

Scoping

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12


an active relationship between two or more organisations or groups

A partnership requires on-going participation as well as ownership by all the members.

which has reached a defined stage of co-operation

This participation can involve: contributing to the day-to-day implementation of partnership activities; supporting facilitation processes; managing and reviewing the partnership.

This is outlined by an agreement whereby they agree to combine their resources and expertise

A very clearly stated agreement between members is an essential part of making a partnership work. This agreement defines responsibilities and expectations, and provides a document to both guide and assist if there are any difficulties. Building equity requires groups to contribute. Their contributions can be of very different kind and quantity, but a partnership thrives on everyone bringing something significant to share in the group.

To carry out a specific set of activities in order to achieve a specific outcome

There is some kind of plan and an anticipated outcome. These may both be renegotiated in the light of events and learning, but there needs to be agreement and clarity about what will be done.

around the well-being of children

Any programme partnership must have a clear focus on sustainable improvements in the well-being of children.

with shared benefitsIt must be clear how each member is going to benefit, as well as how the common goal for child well-being will be achieved.

and shared risksThere is no guarantee that everything will go right! Members need to accept that they share the risks; the broker needs to work with partners to ensure the risk is not too much for any of them.

in a process of co-creation

Co-creation brings synergy and enables members to be able to dream, develop and design possibilities that were not feasible before. Ultimately the partnership may achieve a much greater impact than any member could have achieved alone.

Table 5.1 Defining a partnership

Note: A partnership agreement does not need to be a legal agreement. If one partner wants to enforce the agreement through a legal process, then the partnership is probably failing already and other ways of fixing it would be better. Where financial transfers are involved, appropriate agreements must be in place according to minimum financial standards.

PARTNERshIPs AND PARTNERshIP BROkERs

5.1PA RTN E R s h I P D E F I N IT I O N s

A practical definition of partnership is as follows:

A partnership is an active relationship between two or more organisations which has reached a defined stage of co-operation. This is outlined and governed by an agreement whereby they agree to combine their resources and expertise to carry out a specific set of activities in order to achieve a specific outcome. Both benefits and risks are shared between partners in what is often a process of co-creation.


5.2Th E PA RTN E R s h I P B RO k E R

Partnership brokers support and strengthen partnerships by their understanding and skilled management of the partnership process .

A partnership broker (PB) needs to remain neutral. They need to be trusted not to support one partner over another. The PB’s responsibility is to support each partner’s interests and the goal of the partnership.

ThE COMPETENT PARTNERshIP BROkERThe key roles of a partnership broker are to:

ubuild and sustain relationships:

this is the foundation, and includes everything from building trust and managing ground rules to conflict resolution.

umanage across different organizations:

Partnership management looks very different from normal management because people do not report to the partnership. Their organisations’ participation is voluntary.

umanage complexity:

there are different and changing relationships both between partners and within partners, as well as with other stakeholders. These need monitoring and adaptation.

uunderstand roles and responsibilities:

the broker needs to be able to understand partners, and their representatives – what drives them, what is of value to them, what they can offer and how they can be effectively supported.

The PB’s role changes over time from convening, to facilitating, to supporting or advising. They become more hands-off as a partnership develops. At the same time, the partnership itself grows in its competence at working together. This is shown in the diagram below.

Scoping & Building

Managing & Delivering

Reviewing & Revising

Sustaining Outcomes

Convening Relationship-

building Facilitating negotiation Vision sharing

Helping the partnership: * Communications * Governance * Co-ordination

Facilitating or supporting:

* Closing * Renegotiating

* Transitions

Helping the partnership: * Measuring

* Learning * Revising

figure 5.1 The changing role of the partnership broker in the partnership cycle



Scoping and buildingInTERnaL PaRTnERShIP

BROkER:InTERnaL PaRTnERShIP BROkER:

BROkER TyPE

Their organizations are co-owners of the shared project. They are decision-makers for the partnership.

Facilitators but not owners of the shared project.

They are not decision-makers for the partnership.

fEaTuRES

From inside a partner organisation

Represents the partnership to their organisation

Represents their organisation to the partnership

Tasked with managing the process by their organisation

They join the partnership because their job requirements are achieved through the partnership goals

From outside the different partners

Appointed by one or more (or all) of the partners

Appointed because of their skills and experience in partnering

Likely to be significantly involved in the first stages of the partnering cycle (scoping, identifying, building, planning, mobilising, structuring)

From the managing and delivering phase, may be much more hands-off except where required at significant change points (eg revisions, transitions, renegotiation)

aDVanTagES

Clear commitment to the project.

Understands from an inside perspective.

Impartial, not favouring one partner over another.

Chosen for their brokering skills and experience.

External to any power politics to the organizations.

DISaDVanTagES

harder to be open-minded in decision-making. It’s easier for them to see their own organization’s perspective, even when they try to be neutral.

Can be perceived as favouring their own organization.

Needs to find a balance between representing their own organization and facilitating a process that cares equally about each partner.

May not be committed to the partnership.

Does not understand the details of the context and partnership as much as partners.

May need extra funding.

Table 5.2 Partnership brokers can be external or internal

When an internal PB is being used as a facilitator, it may be helpful to bring in another person from their organisation to look after that partner’s interests so that the PB can be a neutral facilitator .In addition clear ground rules – including vetoes – may be needed so all partners can trust the PB to value their interests equally. What matters most is that the partnership broker is trusted, has the needed skills, acts transparently, has no hidden agenda and the entire partnership is happy with the choice of broker. At times of difficult negotiation then an external broker may be needed. At this point the internal brokers must step back, perhaps working just as partner representatives.



5.3wORLD vIs ION’s ROLE

World vision’s preferred role is to ‘catalyse and build capacity’. The wv staff in the partnership will be much more effective if they understand the dynamics of partnering and the basic processes. If the

Decision Gate option is catalyse and build, this means playing the role of external broker and building the capacity of others to become brokers in the future. If the Decision Gate option is ‘Join’ then wv is much more likely to be an ‘informed partner’.

when wv is a partner, the representative must have the appropriate decision-making authority. They must also be effective in representing the partnership back to wv, recognising the commitments being made and expectations of wv in the partnership.

If the wv representative takes the role of internal partnership broker, there are three possibilities:

uan external broker can be brought in;

uanother wv staff member can represent world vision; leaving the internal broker free to concentrate on managing the partnership;

uthe internal broker may also train or mentor others in the partnership to take more active brokering roles and so demonstrate that they are not owning or driving the process

Sometimes WV can act as an external broker, fulfilling its role of ‘catalysing’. At these times, the WV partnership broker must be careful not to favour one partner over another.


TOP TIPs – ThINkING ABOUT COsTs AND BENEFITs

sharing risks, co-creation, active relationship: these are a description of sharing power together and building a day-to-day relationship. This involves sharing control with partners, each of which is different. success in partnership takes hard work, servant-leadership, lots of dialogue, patience – and forgiveness.

Partnership may be needed to achieve big, long-term changes, but it is important to count the cost before entering into partnership. The rewards need to be valuable since a partnership can take a lot of nurture to bring it to success.


B U I L D I N G A PA RT N E R s h I P

The partnering cycle provides the basic building blocks of a multi-stakeholder process. This section describes the process for

building a partnership. This will be work carried out during steps 5 and 6 of the Critical Path. It explains the Partnering Cycle steps 3 and 4 - bringing a partnership to the point of developing and signing an agreement (‘scoping and Building’). Elements of structuring and Mobilising (Partnering Cycle steps 5 and 6) may also need to be in place before an agreement is signed.

OVERVIEW

6.1INTRODUCTION

Building a partnership is a significant piece of work and will require a considerable amount of preparation, particularly for larger projects. This preparation includes the growth of trust and mutual understanding

between partners. without these strong foundations the work will struggle to progress.

This section covers:6.1 Introduction6.2 Partnering Cycle Step 3

6.3 Partnering Cycle Step 4

What causes partnerships to fail?

Partnership brokers typically say that partnerships fail because not enough time is put during the planning phase. This leads to unmet expectations, failures of communication, damaged relationships and ultimately failure of the project. If in doubt, reduce the risks of the project by making it smaller,

SIGNING AN AGREEMENT

Building

Planning

Identifying

Scoping

1

2

3

4

Figure 6.1 Partnering Cycle Stage 1S coping and Building

6


Following the stages outlined here will not guarantee perfect partnerships. The partnership broker, together with the partners, needs to design a process that will fit their timetables, their needs, their relationships and their capacities. They need to be flexible and adapt to each other, to new information and to changing circumstances.


Table 6.1 assessing progress in establishing partnershipsPRInCIPLE ExPECT TO SEE: RESuLTS In:

muTuaL BEnEfIT

• Open commitment to the partnership. • Potential partners able to explain what they

are getting out of the partnership.

• Commitment through the lifetime of the shared project and more chance for working together in future shared projects.

EquITy

• Respect growing between partners.• Partners able to identify their own

resources and starting to commit specific resources.

• Ownership: potential partners talk about ‘we’ and not just ‘us’ and ‘you’.

• New resources and expertise are ‘unlocked’ by respect for each other.

TRanSPaREnCy

• Partners clearly explaining their hopes and constraints.

• willingness to accept suggestions and give credibility to others.

• No accusations of hidden agendas.

• Trust grows, meaning the partnership can get over bad patches.

At each step, the principles of equity, mutual benefit and transparency need to be checked. The table below offers some simple ways to check these.



Learning Together

It is essential that in using the partnering cycle and principles, (potential) partners use it flexibly. They will learn about working together and about their own organisation’s strengths, weaknesses and roles. They will

learn more about each other, about the problems they want to address, and how to tackle those problems together. Effective facilitation will help value and build this learning. The group will begin to recognise that nobody has all the answers, but that everyone has something to contribute. Periodically, the group can celebrate progress and the new ideas and understandings that have been achieved, alongside more tangible progress to the goal. The learning achieved will provide the basis for future, more ambitious or more effective partnerships without having to repeat this groundwork again.

Partnership Brokering for Building and Planning:

uRecognise that partners are ‘potential’ until an agreement is signed – do not expect too much of them, too soon.

uPreparation is vital for every meeting – develop the process to achieve the required ‘learning objective’ for that meeting (see Guidance Note 7.1, Facilitating Effective Meetings).

uwork with potential partners between meetings to build trust, gain understanding of how organisations and individuals are reacting to the process, and to recognise any internal pressures representatives may have.

uProvide safe and relaxed surroundings to encourage everyone to participate effectively.

uDocument carefully all of the meeting outputs and ensure that they are agreed and communicated well to the partners.

Organisational representation: It is essential to have consistency in who represents each organisation. It is impossible to conduct good negotiations when the person representing each organisation keeps changing. They must also have enough authority for meaningful engagement. At the beginning, ensure that the equivalents of director-level people or senior managers are involved. If not, the process will be painfully slow and more committed partners will either lose interest or move ahead alone. Growing relationships and trust between individuals in the partnership is really important. Be creative about when and where to hold meetings to enable representatives to attend.

Read and Prepare:section 2 ‘Understanding partners’. St Francis prayed to “seek first to un-derstand” and this is ideal partnering behaviour. section 3 describes how to understand different partners.

6


STEPS 3 and 4: BuILDIng and PLannIng

Steps 3 and 4 of the Partnering Cycle are broken down into 9 components. Ensure each output is achieved, using as many meetings as necessary.

Table 6.2 Partnering Cycle Steps 3 and 4: Outputs and ToolsPaRTnERIng CyCLE kEy OuTPuTS TOOLS / aPPROaChES

Step 3Their organizations are co-owners of the shared project. They are decision-makers for the partnership.

Ground rules agreed

Good working relationships

Approach described below

see ‘Facilitating Effective Meetings’

see ‘Understanding Partners’

Express shared objectives clearly

General objective for the partnership

Approach described below

Understand every partner’s interests

Growing understanding of other partners

Possible benefits for each partner

see ‘Negotiation and Consensus Building’.

Resource mapping List all partner resources Resource mapping tool (below)

Step 4Create options A list of possible projects that

will contribute to the broad partnership objective

Prioritisation Assessment of the different projects

Project choice

Pairwise Ranking Tool

Committing resources specific resources that partners can contribute or mobilise

Resource commitments tool (below)

Making a plan together Outline time plan, outputs, partner roles

Partnership Planning Tool

strategic alignment

Developing a partnership agreement

Transparent agreement to describe the partnership and how it will work

Partnership Agreement Checklist



6.2PARTNERING CYCLE sTEP 3

Build relationships and establish ground rules

a first partnership meeting requires a combination of relationship-building, establishing ground rules and vision-sharing, to enable the group to agree how they will work together.

Each potential partner will have already met within a working group or other meetings. But this will be the first time they come together to build deeper relationships and to plan a specific shared project.

The role of the partnership broker in this meeting is to create an environment that allows constructive communication.

It is important to create some written ground rules through a carefully-facilitated process. These can always be renegotiated later if something is missing or something needs to be revised. keep the ground rules few in number, clear and simple.

Typical ground rules for this planning stage could include the following.

Each partner commits to:

ulistening to and respecting contributions from every other potential partner.

uensuring their organisation is always represented in the meetings and processes.

ushared decision making.

usupporting transparent, speedy and accurate recording of plans and decisions.

These ground rules can be later revised when it comes to a partnership agreement.

Express shared objectives clearly

Child well-being priorities that the community want to work on will already have been identified. The partnership broker needs to be clear about the parameters of the possible partnership before inviting

participants. For example, the starting parameters might be: ‘a non-formal education project for vulnerable youth’; or ‘preschool interventions to achieve better primary school enrolment’.

The shared objectives agreed need to be tangible enough to work with, but able to provide plenty of scope for creativity and flexibility. They need to be big enough to provide motivation and to show how they contribute to the community’s vision for child well-being.

6B U I L D I N G A PA RT N E R s h I P


understand every partner’s interests

Possible partners have agreed on a general shared objective. Now they need to discover and deepen their understanding of each other’s interests: some may be obvious, others may not visible. The organisations

begin to explore differences and potential conflicts between their various positions and interests.

The facilitator needs to guide a process of interest-based negotiation that encourages each person to explain clearly their own mission, purpose, motivations and drivers. Together they can then find common objectives. This stage makes sure that the potential partnership will be set up to achieve the shared interests of all parties.

To do this, the facilitator asks each partner in turn to explain:

u what is your vision for what we can do together?

u why is that good for you? how does it help your organisation?

u what are your fears and concerns?

The other partners are encouraged to ask questions and explore these explanations further.

READ: ‘Negotiation and Consensus-building’ which provides an explanation of how to succeed in interest-based negotiation.

Tips for partners:Your Interest is what is good for you;Your Position is what you say you want.Ask yourself why you want what you want. This will help you better under-stand what your real goals are and could open up better possibilities for you.

Think About: 1 Look back: Review any Root Cause Analysis. will the shared objective and overlapping interests pay

enough attention to the root cause analysis?

2 Look forward: At this point wv staff will refer to Technical Programmes, relevant ADAPTs or Project Models to be ready to explain how world vision would like to help the process and what role wv might like to play.

Resource mapping

Resource mapping shows possible resources that organisations could mobilise or commit to a shared project. It shows which options are appropriate for the groups’ available resources. This step builds

equity and energy between the partner representatives.

The facilitator’s role is to:

uhelp partners to identify as wide a range of resources as possible that may be available to help the shared project succeed;

ushow how larger, richer or more powerful groups that could expect to dominate the process, do not have all the resources, even though they may, for example, have more financial resources.



REsOURCE CATEGORIEs

Human:

Social:

Natural:

Material:

Financial:

Spiritual:

People – the human resources

skills, competence, expertise, knowledge, services, ability to work; good health.

The community and how it works

Networks, connections and access, credibility, legal license, communication channels, membership of groups, adherence to rules, norms and sanctions, relationships of trust and reciprocity.

Anything in the environment which is not constructed or of human origin

Everything based on local resource stocks: land, soil, forests, trees, marine/wild resources, water, air quality, erosion protection, waste assimilation and storm protection.

Everything that is designed or constructed; it must be tangible

Products, accommodation, buildings, roads, goods, tools, transport, equipment and technology.

All forms of money, including access to savings and loans.

This last category is optional because spiritual resources are not tangible and may not be valued by secular groups. However, it is helpful to recognise them especially when working with other faith-based groups.

spiritual resources are tied closely to human or social capital. shared morals, for example, contribute to social capital. Spiritual resources can range from specific prayers, to a sense of connection between people, to having commitment to one’s community.

Even if it is hard to identify specific spiritual resources, the human, social, financial and physical resources of faith communities and congregations are substantial and should be included in the other categories.

Use the simple framework to prevent people just looking at the obvious resources of money and people. Using a social livelihoods framework can demonstrate the full range of human, social, natural, physical, spiritual and financial resources available.



The five categories can be drawn in a grid or as segments of a pie chart. Each representative should brainstorm the possible resources available to them as widely and creatively as possible.

BU ILDING A PARTNERshIP

several things will become clear to all partners:

uThere is a tremendous range of possible resources.

u smaller or less powerful organisations often have access to many resources, particularly human, social, spiritual but also physical, natural or financial.

uEach partner can recognise that everyone has something significant to contribute.

Caution! At this stage each potential partner must know that they are not making commitments to provide resources. They are creatively and transparently sharing what could be available, if the shared project is right. Goals can be adapted according to the different resources available. A lawyer willing to do some free (‘pro bono’) work, or a church providing a weekday classroom, could make big cost savings to make a plan achievable.

Due diligence, partner strengths and competences

assess carefully the organisational capacities and competences of the different partners. Capacity building for one or more of the partners may be needed to enable them to play their full part. For more information

about partner capacity assessment and capacity building, see Organisational Capacity Building for Partners in DPA guidance. see ‘Understanding Partners’ for more on due diligence.

Human (people and

skills)

Material (made things)

Natural (physical

environmental)

Social (networks & social capital)

Financial

Blank Resource mapping tool (not including optional ‘spiritual resources’


6.3PARTNERING CYCLE sTEP 4

Creating optionsBy the time this step is reached, participants should:

uBe able to describe and explain the interests of the different potential partners;

uBe able to define the guiding vision or overall goal of the proposed partnership.

Now it is time to think about what shared project activities or interventions the partnership can take on to work toward their goal. Creative brainstorming can be used to develop a list of activities which can then be discussed and prioritised.

The partner representatives may agree these intervention options themselves, particularly if they are smaller groups and organisations. Or other staff from the partners can be invited to a meeting to work together and contribute their expertise. Alternatively each partner could be asked to identify a member of staff who could join a more technical team to work and report back to the partnership meeting.

Provide space for individuals to engage with the ideas and think creatively. Encourage people to begin thinking before this meeting and to continue afterwards.

BUILDING A PARTNERshIP 6


sOME IDEAs TO CATALYsE CREATIvITY:

If the group is getting stuck, the facilitator can help catalyse new thinking:

• work in pairs instead of a group

• Ask people to describe the opposite of what they want: ‘how could we do the most useless and ineffective Under-5’s nutrition awareness campaign possible?’ After people enjoy describing how badly it could be done, switch the conversation quickly: ‘Now we see this awful thing. what is going to achieve the opposite?’

• Move people: rotate chairs, sit on the floor or sit on easy chairs. Everyone sees something new, and this can trigger new connections. Encourage humour and jokes.

• Tell everyone to imagine there are no constraints – their boss will approve any budget, there are plenty of resources and time. see what comes up.

• Add ridiculous constraints. For example: the whole thing must be done in two days; with no computers, vehicles or bicycles; with just $50 for the whole project. This can work because the situation is so ‘ridiculous’ or crazy, that everyone feels that even a ridiculous answer is ok. This can allow some rich ideas to come out.

Also see: ‘The diamond of participatory decision-making’ in ‘Negotiation and Consensus Building’.

MOvING TO CREATIvITY IN A GROUP

here are some ideas to help a group work on new ideas:

1. Find a relaxing, fun and safe space. If it is the usual, boring meeting space then the group is likely to generate the usual, boring options.

2. Ensure that the problem statement is clearly made (what is the question, what is the problem?) and that all necessary information is available.

3. Be clear about what will happen to the ideas, so that people know what happens next.

4. Facilitate well. Get the best facilitator to run the meeting.

5. when brainstorming, focus on the big list. Don’t criticise new contributions. Don’t interrupt each other.

6. help participants explore new or existing ideas through rephrasing or in-depth explanations. (Ensure participant questions here are exploratory (‘what if …’, ‘tell me more …’, not critical).

7. Bring different ideas together.

the ‘six Thinking hats’ tool by Edward de Bono is really useful for this process.



Defining World Vision’s role and contribution

Wv has many excellent resources (including technical expertise and financial support) that it can bring to help any project to succeed. The programme staff need to take great care in deciding which

resources they will use in helping any intervention to succeed.

In every ‘Catalyse and Build’ scenario, the emphasis is on capacity building for partners and catalysing shared projects. A simple rule for sustainability is ‘if a partner can do it, help them to succeed in it’. Partnerships should be planned for wv to have decreasing responsibility over the programme lifetime.

Technical Programmes, which include Project Models and ADAPTs (Analyse, Design and Planning Tools) are how wv organizes its interventions at a higher level. They inform shared project designs at the local level. ADAPTs can guide or be used by wv staff to review the whole process to ensure it is developmentally sound. Project models may be wv’s own ones or come from a partner.

In every case, four things need to be thought through:

neutrality – where the partnership reflects a wv priority, there will normally be a Technical Programme for this. In such a case, wv should ensure representation for the Technical Programme as well as the person acting as the Partnership Broker (PB). For example, if the Development Facilitator or equivalent is acting as PB, then the Team Leader or a technical expert or Technical Programme Manager could come as the organisational representative. Alternatively, ensure that someone else is equipped and credible to work as the Partnership Broker.

flexibility and contextualisation – ensure that wv’s contribution is presented as a flexible approach to be adapted, not a blueprint to be followed.

Build ownership – ensure the partners understand what is in the Technical Programme, Project Model or ADAPT, and invite them to adapt it as they relate it to the specific needs of their community, their own resources, needs, skills and capacities and the maturity of the group.

Be humble in expertise: ensure that wv’s position cannot be interpreted as; ‘we know all the answers’. Making any programme work will always need wider ownership.

1

2

3

4



Prioritisation

Prioritisation evaluates a group of items and ranks them in order of importance or urgency. The partnership’s task is to first prioritise the different options, and then to make a choice made about which interventions to

choose.

Making the choice should not involve voting as this creates winners and losers, and may result in a partner leaving the partnership and taking their resources with them. At the end of the prioritisation process, the partners need to take either a unanimous decision or, at the least, have a strong majority choice that everyone can accept.

The participants must prioritise the possible options, based on the results of the resource mapping. It must fit the overall objective of the partnership, and clearly meet the underlying interests of each of the potential partner organisations.

The prioritisation process should create deeper understanding between partners; and may also create new possibilities as options are discussed together. Taking the best bits from two different options is often the way to achieve a win-win outcome.

uThe goal is creating win-win solutions – both for the beneficiaries, and for each partner.

uPrioritisation is not about voting – voting is by its nature win-lose.

A simple prioritising technique:

1. Generate a list of options (for example from brainstorming).

2. Explain that this tool helps to prioritise those items that they want to explore more.

3. The facilitator gives people a number of ‘priority dots’.sticky dots, coloured markers, or other tools are used to do this visually, with everyone participating. (To work out how many dots to give, count the number of items and divide by 3 if there are less than 10, or 4 if there are more than 10).

4. Place the ‘priority dots’ on the options of choice. since this is not a vote, people can place all of their ‘priority dots’ or ticks on one item, or spread them however they wish.

5. Agree with the group which are the top two or three interventions.



when it is hard to choose between the top two or three options, the facilitator may need to ask further questions:

uDo partners have enough information to be able to discuss the options meaningfully? what information is missing?

uhow much does each option meet the objectives of the partnership?

uhow much does each option meet the deeper interests of each partner (assuring mutual benefit)?

uhow easy or difficult will this option be to deliver (do we have the skills and time needed)?

uAre there cheaper or more effective options?

uhow can any potential conflicts that come from this intervention be resolved?

This simple chart, the Prioritising Tool, can help a transparent process of prioritisation.

Table 6.3 a simple Prioritising Tool

InTERVEnTIOnSORganISaTIOn

1ORganISaTIOn

2ORganISaTIOn

3ORganISaTIOn

4TOTaLS

OPTIOn 1[Number or symbol]

OPTIOn 2

OPTIOn 3

OPTIOn 4

ETC.

Intervention Options – must be fully understood by the organisation representatives before scoring.

Scoring – Be clear - will you use numbers or symbols? which ones? how many per organisation? This must be clearly defined and agreed by the representatives together before scoring takes place. Be clear about what the results will mean.

After prioritising options, the team needs to take the top few possibilities and work them out with more detail of stages, needed partner contributions, times and resources.



Committing resources

use the resource mapping information from 3.4 to begin building commitment and a way forward by identifying the resources that each partner can commit. some may be available now, some may come from

individual partners following internal agreement, and some resources need to be mobilised externally. Extra ideas for this, and for working with community resources, are in Good Practices for Development Programmes, Critical Path step 6.

help identify resource commitments by breaking down the shared project as in the following table:

Each partner may have different templates for proposals and budgets and may have different timeframes for considering resource commitments. Time should be given for each member to create the documentation that their organisation requires. Adequate time and flexibility will be needed for each organisation to consider and commit any resources.

Table 6.4 Resource Commitments Tool

OuTPuTS PaRTnER 1 PaRTnER 2 PaRTnER 3 PaRTnER 4gaPS TO BE

fILLED

OuTPuT 1

OuTPuT 2

OuTPuT 3

OuTPuT 4

OuTPuT 5

Partnership goal (the chosen intervention):

Fill in co

mmitted

resource

s across

the

table

Tool: Strategic alignment Now is a good time for the facilitator to use it with partners if there are potential risks or any other issues that need to be discussed before moving to the partnership agreement.



making a plan together

The facilitator now helps the partner representatives to turn these outputs into a practical plan. If any of the ‘ingredients’ are missing then they need to work out how to meet these from elsewhere.

some of the ingredients can include:

Background of the CwB priority Objectives Partner interests

Partners Activities Monitoring plan

Partnership goal Resources and other assets stakeholder mapping

Root cause analysis Partner capacity assessments

Tool: Partnership Planning Tool Use the table from the Partnership Planning Tool to fill in the agreed outputs to form a plan leading from the current situation to the intended objective.

Developing a partnership agreement

By this stage, participants are at the happy point of having a partnership with a clear function. Now it is time to commit to it with a partnership agreement. Potential partners now become real partners, celebrating

the successful progress that has been made together.

For more detail, use the ‘Partnership Agreement Checklist’, or for a more complex partnership, use the Partnering Agreement tools on the Collaboration and Partnering Community of Practice from wv central.

The agreement should not attempt to detail everything. Partners will learn as they work together. The agreement provides a secure basis on which partners can work together toward a clear vision and common goal. staying flexible is essential.

Why write an agreement?

A solid partnering agreement will:

uimprove transparency - providing foundational partnering principles with goals, roles and responsibilities, expectations and commitments

ubuild confidence

unavigate power differences between organisations.

The agreement makes it safe for different groups with different risks and threats to be able to work together.



Developing the agreement

This will be the primary working document for the partnership. It needs careful development by a select and trusted group and checking within each partner organisation to ensure that they are happy to sign up.

The facilitator needs to ensure that enough time is spent on the agreement, but not so much that it takes energy away from the partnership. It may be best to discuss and then delegate finalising the agreement to a group.

Tool: Partnership agreement Checklist

It is helpful for the agreement to include:

• Risk management – disaster / management / child protection (child protection is especially important if individual partner policies are not good enough for the partnership activities).

• Relationships to a child well-being network and other child well-being initiatives.

• Communication with other stakeholders.

• Complaints / response mechanism and any other relevant accountabilities.

• Sustainability plans.

• Consideration of anything that might lead to conflict between partners.

What next?

It is time to celebrate! The partnership has been launched along with a strong and effective agreement. Next it will be time to mobilise the promised resources, govern the partnership, communicate progress and get

down to working on the shared project.



Once an agreement is signed, the real work of partnering (implementation) begins. It is not just about getting the shared

project done. It involves working to develop the right structures, keeping the resources coming in, continuously reviewing progress, adapting to changing situations and partner needs and finally ensuring delivery.

7.1 Good approaches to implementation

7.2 structuring7.3 Mobilising resources7.4 Delivery

OVERVIEW

MANAGING & DE L IvER ING IN PARTN ER s h I P


‘Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: if one falls down, his friend can help him up.

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.’

Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10, 12, NIv

7.1GOOD APPROAChEs TO IMPLEMENTATION

‘Plans are nothing; planning is everything.’ Dwight D Eisenhower, American president

The partnering challenges really begin now! All organisations continuously adjust according to the changes around them. when two, three or more organisations are partnering, they will have to cope not only

with adjusting to changes to their organization but also to changes in each other. At these times partnering can be hard, and good partnering behaviours and skills really matter. A steady, thoughtful facilitator may also help.

when resource scoping or mapping was underway, differences between partners may have seemed useful, showing potential. But when difficulties occur, differences in organisational cultures or needs can easily lead to misunderstanding, frustration and breakdown of trust. Good implementation depends upon all partners choosing to meet their commitments and choosing to keep a trusting attitude of understanding and inquiry toward other partners. This is not the same as being naïve! The exercises that worked well during interest-based negotiation to set up the project, can be used again and again to get through new difficulties and opportunities.

Plans, however carefully developed, are not enough to make partnerships work. The things that make partnerships fail are breakdowns in trust and communication, and not being able to address differences and conflicts (whether small or large). These are as much about good relationships as planning differences.

In the table below, five pairings are suggested that will help partners to build the right behaviours, partnering skills and attitudes for successful shared projects. Note that some people will prefer processes in the left hand column (stage One), the more formal business planning processes. Others may prefer processes that are linked more to building relationships (stage two). The more formal processes often dominated but the relationship processes (stage two) are just as important to ensure success.

7


Table 7.1. five pairs for making a partnership work*

STagE OnE anD STagE TWO BECauSE

Defining the right business arrangement

AND developing the right working relationship

… partners need to treat each other well, with respect and listening.

Explanation: The plan and responsibilities of each partner matter, but the relationships between all the individuals in the partnership matter as much. Transparency and trust go hand in hand to enabling success.

Creating ends measurements

AND creating means measurements

… partners measure what they value, and good partners value their partnership.

Explanation: Ends measurements (outputs and outcomes) matter, but so does the effect of the partnership on each partner. Because the partnership matters, remember to measure how partners and partnership processes are doing.

Recognising differences that stop us working together

AND embracing differences

… difference is a key source of innovation and value.

Explanation: Differences in culture, values and working practices can all be emphasised when interpreting and executing a plan This may mean communication and shared understanding becomes very difficult. This is a time to remember that it was difference – different strengths – that brought the partners together.

Establishing formal alliance management systems and structures

AND enabling collaborative behaviour

… success depends on people choosing to cooperate, not just following rules.

Explanation: Partnership success depends upon individuals choosing to work together, giving time and energy to making it happen. This occurs when managers support and encourage good partnering behaviours, rather than the partnership enforcing structural processes.

Managing the external relationshipwith partners

AND managing your own internalstakeholders

… under informed internal stakeholders can stop good partnering behaviours, and prevent partnerships from succeeding.

Explanation: The collaborators – the individuals and representatives doing the partnership work – might have a great relationship, shared understanding and even productivity. But managers and other internal stakeholders may still struggle with understanding or distrust. The organisational representatives need to take time and take care to bring and keep internal stakeholders on-board.

* Ideas and stage definitions based on Hughes, J and J Weiss (2007) ‘Simple rules for making alliances work’, harvard Business Review November 2007, pp122 – 131.

M A N AG I N G & D E L I v E R I N G I N PA RTN E R s h I P


This is the time to finish working out just how the partnership develops a ‘structure’ to deliver on its plans. One critical element to establish is to ensure that the partnership is embedded within all its partners, and

not just dependent upon sole individuals.

Elements of the structure may, or may not, have been written into the partnership agreement. The structure needs to build on the partnership agreement. It needs to be designed carefully by the partner representatives, respecting their accountabilities.

Decision-making and accountability

• Decision-making and planning• Accountability to each other• Agreeing what happens when things go wrong

Communications• within the partnership• Outside the partnership

Resources• Finances• Time inputs – including committed time of

representatives for running the partnership• Other resource commitments

Managing• Measuring progress• Activity progress• Meeting schedules

Behaviours• Co-working – how to work together day-to-

day• Cordination – how each partner coordinates

their particular contribution

The structure needs to include:

7.2CREATING A sTRUCTURE

Putting it into practiceIn order to achieve the five pairs of processes described above, it can be helpful to have some carefully facilitated meetings between work teams from the different partners – not just the partner representatives, but the people whose work the shared project will depend on. This could be community volunteers, book-keepers, teachers, health workers etc.

The goal of these meetings is to create shared understanding, trust and respect.

Encourage curiosity about what people do, and allow space for people to share some of their successes, and their challenges (if they feel safe enough to). Allow plenty of informality, relaxed conversations, and use simple ice-breakers or team games to help people get to know one another.

M A N AG I N G & D E L I v E R I N G I N PA RTN E R s h I P 7


A steering group (“partnership leadership team”)is to ensure the partnership manages the direction of their projects.

As implementation begins this is a good time to review the ground rules and ensure they spell out in more detail how the partners will work together.

The steering group, drawn from partners can ensure good coordination of all actions by partners toward the shared projects.

Figure 7.1 A simple partnership structure

governance

coordination

direction

harmonised action

Partnerorganisation D

Partnerorganisation A

Partnerorganisation B

Partnerorganisation C

Partnership leadership team:

Partner representatives Responsible for strategy and

accountability Represent partners’ interests

Partnershipleadership team

Partner organisations:

Responsible for time, expertise, resourcesand implementation

D

E L

I

V

E R

Y

STRuCTuRES

Building good structures will help ensure that good governance and coordination occur.

‘Governance’ means, at its most basic, ‘steering’. A steering group drawn from the partner representatives is the typical way to manage a partnership.



Discussion questions? which mechanisms are best used for recording meetings, particularly records that are shared with the

wider public?

? How can officials be encouraged to read records which track the history of the partnership’s initiative?

This table shows the different purposes, ways of communicating and audiences to consider for the partnership.

PuRPOSES mEChanISmS auDIEnCES

• engaging interest

• confirming agreements

• recording commitments

• recording meetings

• information sharing

• project descriptions

• tracking the history

• capturing the story

• others?

• face-to-face conversations

• presentations

• workshops

• storytelling

• written minutes

• notes of e-mails

• phone calls

• video

• audio

• photographs

• others?

• partner representatives

• partner organisations

• partner networks

• project staff

• project beneficiaries

• officials

• wider public

• other partnership practitioners

• others?

Table 7.2 COmmunICaTIOn OPTIOnS

Based on Partnering step by step by Ros Tennyson,The Partnering Initiative.



This stage is not about finding resources before the partnering agreement is made, already discused in section 6. This stage is about ensuring committed resources are given and arrive as planned, and about

finding other resources that may have been hoped for, or gaps that remained unfilled.

when mobilising, the roles and responsibilities of different partners need to be thought through; possibly using a stakeholder map. Then it can be seen who has direct or indirect access to what resources. Remember that time is also an essential resource. The time commitment of partner representatives and other co-workers needs to be recognised and honoured.

7.3MOBILIs ING REsOURCEs

The tasks can be summarised as follows:

uSupport partners to honour their previously made commitments to the partnership. This needs clarity, timely reminders and motivation.

vShow how different partners’ contributions are enabling progress within the shared project.

wfind other stakeholders who can bring other needed resources. Different partners can take different responsibility for making the case to those stakeholders to encourage their involvement and contribution.

ThINkING ABOUT sUsTAINABILITY

wv’s presence in the community is limited in time. wherever wv contributes to a partnership, think carefully about how the next phase of the partnership can have less dependency on wv. Are there specific competences that partners need to develop or areas of ownership that need to change? how can this be addressed in this phase of the partnership?



The delivery stage is typical of a project cycle, and can last from weeks to years depending on the goal

and plan. It and will be familiar to many of the partners. Challenges may arise either when partners are asked to play a different role from normal, or in delivering as a partnership.

simple plans and tracking who is responsible for what, and when, are needed to ensure good delivery. If roles and responsibilities have not already been clarified and communicated, this needs to be done urgently.

Agreed representatives should keep track of activities and check tha partner commitments and activities are achieved on time.

Each stage and milestone needs to be celebrated with all of those involved, so that good partnering behaviours are recognised and rewarded. This is also a great way of ensuring partners and stakeholders keep up-to-date with progress (see section 8).

For facilitators, effective day-to-day communications and maintaining good relationships are essential. Trouble-shooting when difficulties arise is key.

some things will inevitably be more important to one partner or another, and can lead to one partner feeling left out of planning or a ‘second class’ partner. Good, transparent communication is essential.

7.4DELIvERY

CONFLICT OR CAPACITY?

Would it be conflict between partners, or their partnering capacity that would be most likely to prevent successful delivery of a shared project?

A survey in 2010 of local collaborations for child well-being in 10 countries showed that the single most consistent difficulty in following through with their agreed tasks, was the lack of time being allocated by the partner organisations.

A distant second was resource conflicts between partners (rare but a big problem when it happened). Third was insufficient overlap of partnership and individual group goals (in other words, mutual benefit was low); and fourth was personality conflicts between individuals.

Tip: Be flexible!Recognise that things change. This may mean the partnership plan and agreement are out of date. see section 9.

SECTIOn 8 looks at setting up monitoring plans and then reviewing and revising the partnership as needed.

SECTIOn 9 provides ideas for growing the collaborative capacities within partnerships and across the Collaboration space. It also has tools for managing changes to partnership members (entries and exits).



STEP 1: STEP 2: STEP 3: STEP 4 :

set the basic indicator

Add Quantity- an amount or percentage that will be achieved

Add Quality– a built in quality measure to specify the indicator

Add Time – when this should be accomplished (avoid using general phrases such as ‘As soon as possible.’)

ExAMPLEhandwashing facilities in school

Every classroom has its own handwashing facility.

Clean water and soap are available at each handwashing facility.

•Before the end of the school holiday.

1. Define the activities and outputs: use qqT indicators

The simplest way of setting useful Indicators is to use QQT - Quantity, Quality, Time.

TOOLS TO hELP ThIS STagE

aCTIVITy STaRT anD fInISh DaTE

PEOPLE n E E DE D

maTERIaLS nEEDED

PE RSOn RE S POn S IBLE aS S u mPTIOn S PaRTn E RS

COnTRIBuTIng

what must happen

when? who is going to do it

what exactly is needed

who is organizing?

what could go wrong?

specify each partner contribution (material, people)If preferred, identify the partner contributing in the previous columns ‘people’ and ‘materials’

ExAMPLE Put simple water bottle-and soap outside each classroom.

Next wednesday and Thursday

Technician to guide; 3 people to help

soap, bottles, large water holders, wooden frame

Partnership broker

Boreholes not working

•Partner A, B, C: 1 person each; partner D: technician

•Partner B – bottles and soap.

•Partner A: frames

2. Planning table

Partners can sit together and use this simple planning tool to ensure that everything can be organized.

The following shows a planning table for a handwashing installation in a village school.



The primary purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to provide useful information to partners and stakeholders to inform good decision-

making. This includes understanding:

• Progress towards shared child well-being goals

• The health and value of collaborative processes

• Changes in partners and their capacities

• Changes in context and how this affects the collaborative space.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes need to be owned by all partners within collaborations. They are necessary for the successful implementation of their shared plans.

wv’s Baseline and Evaluation Guidance and Programme Monitoring Guidance provide the necessary details about the ‘how to’ of establishing baselines, monitoring and evaluation. Information in this section is complementary. It includes additional details for M&E in partnerships and is organised in the four sub-sections:

1. what needs to be measured – and appropriate tools

2. Principles –measuring in collaboration

3. when to measure – M&E, LEAP and the partnering cycle

4. Using M&E information for developing collaboration.

OVERVIEW

MONITORING AND EvALUATION FOR COLLABORATION

8.1 what needs to be measured8.2 Principles of monitoring and

evaluation needed within collaborations

8.3 when to measure: M&E in leap and the partnering cycle

8.4 Using M&E information


8.1whAT NEEDs TO BE MEAsURED?

The table below shows the different areas that need measuring to show partnering progress toward achieving agreed objectives and sustaining outcomes. Note that certain things need to be measured

or recorded during the early stages to provide baselines to assess later progress. Documents such , as the partnership planning tool and partnership agreement will also need to be completed early on.

8


This table shows the different purposes, ways of communicating and audiences to consider for the partnership.

aREa WhaT TO mEaSuRE TOOLS

1. success Outcomes for child well-being Monitoring guidance

Baseline and evaluation guidance

Collaborative advantage Partnership benefit spider

Collaboration case study

Notes: The partnership benefit spider and the collaboration case study both help show the difference a collaborative approach makes. They are participatory exercises which help build collaborative competence in the group. They are also helpful communication tools that partners can use to explain their work together to others.

2. Process Effective relationships and facilitation

Effective relationships and facilitation

Notes: The health check can be used at regular intervals through the life of a shared project. It is intended for use within a shared project with a clear agreement and sharing of resources. It is designed as a shared process which builds understanding and enables partners to adapt to each others’ needs and strengths.

3. Partners Partner capacity development Organisational Capacity self-Assessment

Individual partner benefits Partnership benefit spider

(Partnership health check; Collaboration case study)

Notes: Changes within partners are critical to sustaining project outcomes and making overall progress toward sustainable outcomes in programming. These tools look at the benefits for partners (which can include their own organisational capacity development and staff development). Use of the Organisational Capacity Self-Assessment will show the development of groups supporting child well-being.

4.

Collaboration space

Engagement and diversity of partners

Collaboration space mapping

Decision gate (Civil society context)

(Other relationship and influence mapping tools)

Notes: The environment facilitating participation and shared contribution to child well-being is likely to change through the life of the programme. Collaboration Space reveals the growing participation of diverse partners. The Decision Gate tool shows changes in the enabling environment and the contribution of civil society for child well-being.

Table 8.1 Tools for Collaboration m&E

Note that some of the tools are dual-purpose, eg the ‘partnership benefit spider’ looks at partners and overall success. Any other relevant tools can be used as appropriate.



INFORMATION sOURCEs INCLUDE:• Collaboration strategy or setup documents (such as the partnership agreement)

• Collaboration records (such as resources, finances, activities, meeting notes, training workshop records)

• Partner perceptions gained during workshops, interviews or questionnaires

• stakeholder perceptions gained through interviews or questionnaires

• Participant and member perceptions gained through interviews or questionnaires

• Network maps

• Membership records

• Partners’ own records

• Beneficiary survey.

8.2PRINCIPLEs OF MONITORING AND EvALUATION NEEDED wIThIN COLLABORATIONs

Collaboration is a relational, complex, dynamic process, and M&E processes must recognise that. M&E processes should bring mutual benefits to each partner. wv programme staff can support partners in

planning and implementing M&E approaches that will be valuable to all of them..

The three partnering principles must be fully respected:

uequity – as far as possible, all partners will contribute meaningfully to planning, doing, analysing and using the findings from the agreed M&E systems.

umutual benefit – each partner will have other concerns in addition to their shared collaboration goals. Each must be gaining some clear value through the partnership and it is important to identify these specific benefits for each partner.

utransparency – data and analysis regarding their shared projects and partner contributions (or difficulties), must be open to all partners (and also to the different groups which the partnership and partners are accountable to).

Through this process, each partner becomes more aware of their behaviour in the partnership. Then they can make their own decisions about whether or not to continue, and how to improve their own performance as active partners. They can revise their own plans and the type (or size) of contributions they make to the collaboration.

Increasing mutual accountability and sharing of control are signs of a positive and productive collaboration. To achieve these, partner organisations will have to adapt to play their roles as good partners.

8MONITORING AND EvALUATION FOR COLLABORATION


RESPOnD TO DIffEREnT PaRTnERS’ nEEDS

• Do not under-estimate the learning curve that may be required for organisations with different cultures, values and approaches to do M&E together. support, coaching and sharing experience are often needed.

• Affirm good partnerships through M&E. The tools provided above are designed to build up partners. Though difficulties and problems of individual partners may emerge, this must be handled in a sensitive and supportive manner. For example, a partner exit from the partnership may be appropriate. This transition needs to be managed carefully, supporting good relationships, and not by blame or fault-finding.

• Be respectful of individual partners. Remember that just because a process proves good for one partner, it may not be so good for another. Each partner needs to derive clear benefit (for example, use the Partnership Benefits tool).

RECOgnISE EVOLVIng RELaTIOnShIPS

The relationships within the partnership will change. This includes the group dynamic of the partnership, as well as working relationships between partner organisations. It is important to track these, because however good the structures of the partnership, they cannot replace poor working relationships (similarly, great relationships cannot make up for poor structuring).

New ideas, synergies, innovations and relationships will develop around the shared project as direct or indirect benefits.

BE RESPOnSIVE TO COnTExT

Unexpected things will happen to partners and to other stakeholders. Collaborations need to be able to adjust to these. There is no point in sticking to a plan that is no longer relevant, because either the needs or the capacities and resources have changed. sometimes this will allow a partnership to take advantage of new opportunities; at other times an adjustment in timing or scope is needed.

EmPOWERIng PaRTnERS ThROugh m&E ShaRE RESPOnSIBILITy

• Each partner will be asked; ‘how are you investing into our common work?’ This can catalyse a broad sense of responsibility that goes beyond just ‘my’ organization or ministry focus.

• M&E is participatory and interactive, involving not just individuals but also group interaction. The results of group discussion inform the M&E process. As well as partners, other stakeholders and beneficiaries/participants can be involved.



8.3whEN TO MEAsURE: M&E IN LEAP AND ThE PARTNERING CYCLE

The table below shows how the measuring tools can be used in the collaboration M&E plan. This is set up during ‘structuring’ (Partnering cycle step 6) based on the overall child well-being priorities. Remember

that there will be other changes happening – to partners, to the civil society context, and of the collaboration space – will evolve through the lifetime of a world vision programme. Collaborations themselves may have much short life-cycles, repeating steps 5 to 7 of the critical path as capacities grow, and child well-being needs change.

DmE PROCESS TOOLS WhaT TO InCLuDE

Critical Path step 5:

Plan

(covered in Section 7)

Decision Gate

Partnership Planning Tool

• develop high-level definitions of success: “what we intend to achieve”

• agree on overall indicators

• clarify intended benefits to each partner


Plan

(covered in Section 7)

Partnership Agreement Checklist

• details of monitoring system

• how to measure it

• who will do what


Do the M&E;

Partnership health Check

Collaboration Case study

Partnership Benefit spider

Partner Capacity Assessments

Decision Gate

Collaboration space

• activities

• outputs

• partnership functioning

• individual partner’s contributions and behaviours

• changes in the collaboration context


Analyse what has changed

Tools as for measuring • reviewing the partnership: what is the effect of the partnership on partner organisations?

• are they doing the right things, are they working in the right ways?

• impact of shared projects

• partner capacities and changes

• partnership’s facilitation processes



8.4UsING M&E INFORMATION

Once information has been gathered and analysed, it can then be used for reviewing and revising the partnership, and for communicating about the partnership to the partners and other stakeholders.

use data from monitoring during regular and one-off partnership reviews and meetings.

Adjust plans according to what is happening, for example:

uThe day-to-day plans of the partnership

uThe dates of projects

uThe contributions and work of each partner.

use at key partnership moments, such as after evaluation

Adjust outcomes to meet new needs or changing contexts:

uAdjust roles and responsibilities of partners

uAdjust the partnering agreement

uRevise ground rules or facilitation processes for the partnership

uExpand the partnership

uAsk if new partners are needed

uAsk if it is time for some existing partners to exit.

Communicate

Communicating well is essential to successful collaboration; sharing information about progress, costs and changes with those that need to know. Good communications around measuring can help build commitment, demonstrate transparency and in being accountable to other partners, to the community and to other stakeholders.

At a Community review or child well-being network meeting, any collaboration can report back wider changes and progress; and find ways of adjusting plans to coordinate with other groups.

Celebrate!

After any kind of M&E process, it’s very important to ensure that all partners are appropriately included in celebrating success. This can be done after any significant milestone.

uRecognise everybody’s part

All contributions to the shared project are regularly acknowledged, documented and celebrated; this includes such things as ideas or meeting commitments in a timely manner.

ufocus on the success of the shared project

The partnership only celebrates the success of the shared project, and doesn’t claim other successes of their partners as its own.

uEvery partner owns the results



As every partner has genuine equity in the shared project, they can all claim to be full partners in the partnership’s success.

By making celebrations a regular habit of the partnership, it will build up a culture of mutual support and respect, where loyalty and care for each other are valued. It will also help to improve transparency and good communications because nobody feels their contributions are overlooked.

Look at the collaboration space:

There will always be a changing network of relationships in the collaboration space. some collaborations will be growing, others will be ending, and some may be stable, like a child well-being network.

Comparing a collaboration space map with the baseline will give an idea of the number of partners collaborating for child well-being, and also the diversity and degree of their engagement. It can reveal sectors or people groups who are missing out. It can also show which groups are most central and how that may have changed over time.

This information will help in planning for:

ucapacity building – for example, supporting the involvement of specific CBOs in their community’s shared planning processes

uadvocacy – ensuring that duty-bearers are adequately engaged

usustainability – for example, ensuring that the key groups are those with long-term with responsibility for child well-being.


Child rightscoalition

Child well being network

Non-formaleducation

partnership


as collaborations mature, partners need to plan on how to maintain and sustain all the positive changes in child well-

being they have achieved.

One of the end goals for wv is for a healthy set of relationships and alliances across the collaboration to be built. These need to include different sectors, so that child well-being can be sustained, and collaborative approaches used to address new needs and challenges.

“Shared projects are developed and implemented by multi-stakeholder and cross sector working groups. Local groups and organisations are developing and using the skills to work effectively together for child well-being, balancing their priorities and interests. Governments, regulators, traditional structures, and the private sector are engaged and play a role. Churches and other faith-based organisations are actively engaged, building on their sustainable presence and influence with their congregations and wider communities.” WV’s Drivers of Sustainability

This section is relevant to step 7 of the Critical Path and for the redesign of programmes, and to step 8 and Transitions. It explains the following tasks:

1. Developing group learning capacities in order to improve future plans

2. strengthening networks, coalitions and partnerships

3. Maintaining the benefits of shared projects after completion –‘sustaining outcomes’

4. supporting partners to manage transition within collaborations.

when changes occur in the systems that protect and nurture children, the aim of strong collaborations is to enable the role and responsibility of any organisation to be replaced by another (such as government or business service providers), in a financially sustainable way). wv is a temporary visitor to any community and any tasks or responsibilities it has taken on, should either be finished, or handed over to other partners, government or business service providers during the life of the programme.

OVERVIEW

9.1 how a group learns9.2 Collaboration for sustaining child well-being9.3 Partnership transitions: Exit, plan or

scale up9.4 Partner Transitions and checklists


ThE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD TRANsITIONs

Four partners in a community developed a much-needed and well-used education resource centre. They all thought that their job was done. But the education official within the partnership moved on, and within 6 months the resource centre co-ordination had ceased, the local volunteers stopped coming, and the youth no longer used it.

‘sustaining outcomes’ was not achieved because the partnership had not ensured an adequate handover.

sUsTAINING OUTCOMEs AND PARTNERING 9


whAT Is LEARNING?

Learningisadaptingandchangingbehaviouraccordingtonewexperienceandunderstanding

Changes in child well-being could be lost if participants and partners go back to old ways of seeing, understanding, relating together and acting. Facilitators can help the group identify and value the changes that have happened to the partners, to the partner-representatives who lead the different collaborations, to other stakeholders and most importantly, to the children, youth and families affected.

how can a group know that its capacity to learn is growing?

At the heart of any partnership is a group of individuals from different organisations who are discovering how to work together. If they are learning together, then their capacity to lead change together is growing.

“In order for group learning to be successful, members must be willing to genuinely listen to others and to be open to new ideas; ideas that may be different from their own and that may, in fact, challenge them to change their ideas.

Group learning will not take place if each member is determined to defend his or her point of view with no possibility of considering other points of view. In such a case, each member is like a closed box with no possibility of receiving new ideas from outside the box. Group learning, in contrast, is like opening all the boxes so the contents can escape and mix and merge with other boxes. The idea is not for any one individual to ‘win’ (the argument or the debate), but rather for the group to win (to achieve better dialogue and more complete understanding)”.

(From the WV OCB Manuals 2008)

Over time, partners should be better able to answer the question: “how do we learn and adapt together?” This means that they are able to recognise and value changes in the way that they think about their shared values and practices regarding:

uChild well-being – and the wider community’s responsibilities

uThe rights and responsibilities of the most vulnerable children

uTheir work together – through monitoring and evaluation.

Use the table below to see how many of the features described are happening in the collaboration. If most are already in place then the group is working out how to learn together successfully. In the right hand column are some facilitator’s tips to encourage such learning.

9.1hOw A GROUP LEARNs

s U s TA I N I N G O U TCO M E s A N D PA RT N E R I N G

?


LEaRnIng fEaTuRE SuPPORTIVE aCTIVITIES

1. Deliberately having partner learning processes

These can be built into the ‘ground rules’ during the early stages.

2. Recognising important themes; understanding the ‘bigger picture’

Use mapping techniques such as rich picture diagrams or mind maps, plus invite other people (for example, a business leader or local governor) to help show the bigger picture.

3. Recognising and adapting to interpersonal and power dynamics

A facilitator can model this. Power analysis within the collaboration can help as well as processes that build equity.

4. Able to carefully analyse detail when necessary

Find ways to help the partners tackle difficult problems without taking shortcuts. Ensure that detail is shown in helpful ways; find searching questions to ask. Bring in people and sources of relevant technical expertise.

5. Generating new insights and ‘aha’ moments for individuals and the collaboration

Use techniques to encourage listening and value the moments of new understanding.

6. Building trust and understanding between group members

Facilitate courageous conversations: create a sense of safety in the collaboration and ask difficult questions when appropriate.

Listen very carefully for what is being said – and or what is not being said

Avoid ‘why’ questions and instead focus on ‘how’

7. Able to recognise and interpret issues from different perspectives

help each partner to ‘stand in the other’s shoes’. Get people to work in pairs, and explain a viewpoint from the other’s perspective.

8. Being tactful and diplomatic The facilitator can model this. Every partner is under its own pressure, so being careful, rather than judgemental, is always helpful. Avoid making assumptions about motivations.

Table 9.1 group Learning

Over time, the shared capacities of different partners across the Collaboration space will grow.

The following table describes features of collaboration that should lead to different groups and organization across the whole Collaboration space being able to adapt their to sustain positive change and help in addressing new challenges to child well-being. New partnerships of subsets of these groups can emerge from these learning processes.

9.2COLLABORATION FOR sUsTAINING ChILD wELL-BEING

9s U s TA I N I N G O U TCO M E s A N D PA RT N E R I N G


1/ Co-ordination – ensuring a functional backbone for collaboration for child well-beingfEaTuRE DESCRIPTIOn nOTES anD PRaCTICE

1. A common agenda

An agreed set of priorities around shared values.

Understanding CwB needs and agreeing what is important.

2. Ability to organise

Facilitation and coordination for any form of collaboration (eg information sharing for a network).

May require someone to coordinate for all the different partners.

This grows through experience. Each partner’s collaborative capacity and their skills to facilitate planning and activity grow.

Background coordination requires funding and supporting the right people (never make the assumption it will happen organically).

3. Mutually re-inforcing activities

Instead of ‘solo efforts’ that get lost, different groups and partner activities contribute to relevant indicators.

Compare and contrast the different working Group plans. Ensure that partners understand why sharing data is important.

4. shared measurement

Be able to show that different activities affect agreed priorities.

Agree relevant indicators and clear ways of measuring progress toward agreed priorities.

5. Continuous communication

Ensure all parties know what others are discovering and finding.

Develop relationships and mechanisms (meetings, newsletters, and individual communications).

2/ Participation – the right groups and the right connections1. social capital

Development of trust and helping relationships grow between different groups

sharing both costs and benefits is critical in enabling continued and more ambitious partnering.

2. Most vulnerable participation

Make sure all participants, particularly the most vulnerable children and their families, are practically engaged in development processes and projects.

This will result as a ‘level playing field’ is established between more powerful groups and people’s groups (eg CBOs). It depends on good social accountability processes.

3. Learning processes

Groups are able to show that they are adjusting to new information, to each other, and to changes in the context (eg need or policy changes) in ways that help them work better.

Changes in individual group capacity show this. Groups that choose not to change, can be the hardest to partner with.

4. Diverse groups and organisations

Collaborations involving groups that are dissimilar, usually enhance innovation and creativity (eg not all partnerships are of NGOs and CBOs).

Facilitators can ensure that diversity provides a creative spark. They can help partners cope with the discomfort of being challenged and can help build shared understanding between groups with different approaches and ways of measuring success.

5. Connections to outside and other levels

Resource and policy connections are made to other relevant groups, businesses, government and NGOs

New groups are able to join in. Collaborative relationships do not get stuck in old ways of relating.

Table 9.2 Building a collaborative environment that can sustain child well-being.



Co-ordination mechanisms: the role of the child well-being network

A network with membership covering different groups and collaborations across one area, can play a very important role at key points and transition moments in a collaboration.

Partnerships can report successes, changes, and recruit new members; coalitions can find new connections for the next stages of their work and the network provides a forum to share information and make new connections.

It is often at this level of the network that the overall vision of child well-being is developed. Progress toward that vision is shared; changes in the context and new needs and opportunities are identified. within the network new partnerships or other collaborative efforts can be started. If shared measurement processes are used widely by partners in the network, it moves towards being a wider coalition for child well-being.

There are three areas to consider within such a network to encourage sustainability:

1/ Involvement – partners continue to play their necessary roles for child well-being.

2/ Delivery – the services needed by children and families are maintained despite changes in context.

3/ Outcomes – effective policies, systems and resources will ensure sustained outcomes.

facilitating the network for the futurewhen beginning work in a community, wv may bring in the capacity to act as broker, convener and co-ordinater. Before thinking of transitions, the child well-being network should be built up and well established. Before wv transitions, all practices need to be owned by appropriate organisations, and carried out by competent and supported individuals. Mentoring these organisations and individuals can start much earlier in the programme.

PRACTICE TIP:

wherever possible, build on the skills and capacities available.

whenever a local leader shows commitment and potential ability in network facilitation, ensure that wv’s local team supports them to develop their skills and capacities.

If the partnership leads to:- a government department functioning

more creatively or efficiently; - a corporation contributing more

rigorously and systematically to sustainable development in all aspects of its operations;

- or to an NGO having larger-scale and more credible impact as an organisation

ThE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD TRANsITIONs

Four partners in a community developed a much-needed and well-used education resource centre. They all thought that their job was done. But the education official within the partnership moved on, and within 6 months the resource centre co-ordination had ceased, the local volunteers stopped coming, and the youth no longer used it.

‘sustaining outcomes’ was not achieved because the partnership had not ensured an adequate handover.



after the reviewing and revising phase of the partnering cycle, the partnership has three options as shown in the box below:

to plan a new phase; to scale up and increase their impact; or to move on. In each case, think about what should (and should not) be sustained through these changes.

Partner roles in networks, coalitions and partnerships can change. successful partners may become network members for a while, or a group of network members may take an opportunity to carry out advocacy through a coalition.

9.3PARTNERshIP TRANsITIONs: ExIT, PLAN OR sCALE UP

moving on

Scaling

xii

xii



A) PLANNING FOR A NEW PHASE

If there is a new or continuing need, and the partnership is succeeding, then planning is needed to enable the partnership to continue its innovation and shared projects. One or two partners might move on, some others join in. By using the increasing trust and partnering competencies within the partnership, members can go ahead to tackle the next problem. The new shared project should build on the partnership’s ambition and increased competencies.

In terms of the partnering cycle, the partnership goes back into the planning phase at step 3 or 4, but now recognising what worked, what did not work, and what could be approached and done differently.

Ensure that a new context analysis is done so that the partnership does not blindly copy the same approach as before. Many things may have changed – different children, changed partners, changed capacities, legislation, environment etc. so simply repeating the same things is rarely possible.

wv’s role may change from facilitation to mentoring, from being a technical partner to focusing on capacity building.

B) SCALING UP

scaling up is about ‘doing it more’.

scaling up happens when a partnership has been successful in getting things done in a new or more efficient way, and the partnership wants to increase its impact. Frequently, scaling up will happen when a partnership has demonstrated that an innovation can work.

Depending on the opportunities, needs, and capacities of the partners, scaling up can happen in three ways:

1/ Grow the partnership – increase the number of partners and the number of locations where the partnership works - within the same overall partnership.

2/ spread the model – communicate the partnership project to areas and groups where similar partnerships/projects could flourish independently (wv may be able to take advantage of clusters of projects to share models, or an education department might copy a school’s innovation across a region).

3/ Engage in policy – work with appropriate policy-makers at different policy levels to see them adopt relevant parts of shared projects.

Scaling

xii



fEaTuRE: gROW ThE PaRTnERShIP SPREaD ThE mODEL EngagE In POLICy

Implementation challenges

Complex to manage new partners and new relationships

More consultative – requires good documentation and support of new partnerships

Consultative and advocacy focused

Spread Can be local or at wider geographic levels

Can be local or at wider geographic levels

Can be local or at wider geographic levels

Control More direct control Model likely to be adapted and contextualised

New policies determine how the model is controlled

Resources Requires more resources to be mobilised

New implementers responsible for resource mobilisation

Government typically responsible; partnership costs for doing advocacy

Main advantages Maintains quality Minimal new inputs needed from existing partners

Institutionalises the approach and safeguards outcomes

For any of these options, a smaller group of existing partners may develop a new shared project together, while others exit. Often an innovative project needs to be taken on for the long-term by the relevant duty-bearer, whlle the partnership plays a supportive or advocacy role, rather than taking on more active responsibility. Alternatively, a new organisation could be formed that is directed by the existing partnership

C) MOVING ON

A partnership may naturally plan to close when it has completed its given tasks, if it has chosen not to scale up or do a new shared project together. This is a good thing – the partnership only exists for its set purpose.

It may also finish even if the partnership project itself was successful, but the costs were very high compared with the benefits.

Moving on requires proper closure, and should include the following elements:

moving on

xii


Table 9.3 Scaling-up options


Sustaining outcomes Ensure that those responsible, for example schools, government etc, are committed and able to follow through with their responsibilities.

Explain how the partnership is transitioning to all participants and stakeholders.

Communicate to stakeholders

Find appropriate ways to explain what the partnership has achieved, and the changes it has made possible for stakeholders and participants.

Review and learn together

Review together and learn about what went well in the shared project processes.

Find ways to review difficulties, or what went wrong, so that the partnership can ‘finish well.’ Explain more widely how it is transitioning once all partners are agreed on what they want to communicate externally.

support partners to use their new capacities and experiences in new initiatives.

Celebrate Celebrate and share all the contributions, achievements, learning and successes of the shared project.

positives of the shared project

In both moving on and scaling up, encourage the partners to maintain connections, for example, through the wider child well-being network.

World Vision’s changing role: planning for sustainable child well-beingworld vision may play a different role in collaborations through a programme lifetime. Ideally, wv will play a decreasing role. Other partners gain resources and capacities, and take increasing responsibility for child well-being.

These changing responsibilities should be measured regularly. From within the partnering DME tools, use the “Partnership Health Check” and the ‘changing roles’ section to show how responsibility is changing. Partner capacity can be measured using a range of tools, such as the Capacity health Check and Organizational Capacity Self-Assessment (OCSA).

Both of these are part of the sustainability Indicators toolkit.



Even when the partnership moves into a new planning or scaling up phase, there is likely to be change within the members and facilitators of the partnership. This is a good thing, keeping the partnership alive.

It is important for exits and entrances to be managed well, so that the transition is good for both the departing / arriving partner, and for the partnership. A network or coalition also needs to think about introductions, discussing vision and shared values. The following checklists can be used to help plan transitions.

9.4PARTNER TRANsITIONs AND ChECkLIsTs

Partner entrance: never expect a new partner (or even just a new partner representative) to just ‘fit in’. Introduce the partnership to them and adjust to them

Partnership agreement includes the possibility of partner transitions in / out.

Induction deliberately provided – to ground rules, history and processes.

Partnership working roles and responsibilities are renegotiated to include new partner.

Clarity about specific contributions to be made by new partner.

Introductions to key individuals across the different partner groups.

Meet with stakeholders in new partner organisation to ensure they understand and value their role in the partnership.

Partner exits: saying good bye successfully

Partnership agreement includes the possibility of partner transitions in / out.

Capacity-building in place within partnership for any skills or resources that may be lost when a specific partner moves on.

Partnership documents and shares what previous partners have contributed – their role is not forgotten.

Partners describe exits in warm and positive language.


Table 9.4 Partner Transition Checklists


Partnership broker’s or facilitator/coordinator exit

who will take over as broker? Do they have the members’ trust and the necessary skills?

Ensure that all roles carried out by the broker or faciliator are explained and transferred to a new broker or facilitator.

Provide clarity and transparency about the process to partners and external stakeholders.

Make sure all the broker’s activities are shared and responsibility is handed over.

Ensure that the partners are the first to know of planned changes, and help them to own the new facilitation that will be required.

Make sure that documentation of the partnership is up-to-date, and everyone knows where it is.

The brokering or co-ordination roles also need to be handed over carefully:

Finally, watch out for multiple changes – if too many key people from different organisations change at the same time, it can really damage the functioning of a partnership.


Local Partnering in Practice: Guidance Notes

Guidance Note 1: the decisioN Gate

The Decision Gate provides a tool for local teams that can be used at step 2 of the critical Path to analyse the local

context and civil society. it is used again at step 5 to take forward this analysis and plan which of three intervention models is appropriate for local stakeholders and the working group.

OVERVIEW

1.1 the three Decision Gate options1.2 Using the Decision Gate tool at step 21.3 Using the Decision Gate tool at step 5


The Decision Gate (dG) is a tool for analysing the local context that gives the development facilitator (dF) insights into the nature and quality of the critical relationships around child well-being in a given context.

it can be used to inform the development Programme approach process at steps 2 and 5 of the critical Path. the tool includes a series of questions, divided into four sections, which enables the user to look at civil society; structure, environment, values and impact.

each question has three possible answers. the answer chosen by the tool users, should be the one that best describes the situation in the programme area or the primary focus area (depending on the stage at which the tool is being used). Situations and contexts will vary significantly and have a wide variety of civil society stakeholders. However, the category into which most answers fit, will point to one of three broad sets of programming options (outlined below), which provide thresholds to inform stakeholder choices and decision-making at two key points (steps 2 and 5) in the critical path.

uWhen used at step 2, the Decision Gate tool enables WV staff to understand how to navigate the development Programme approach more effectively in their context.

uWhen used at step 5 after the exploration of child well-being, the Decision Gate tool enables working group members and WV staff in a primary focus area (PFa), to explore the civil society and state context and relationships for their chosen child well-being priority. they can then agree on one of three options for WV’s role, and how they will work together (either join, catalyse and capacity build or mobilise).

INTRODUCTION

1.1the thRee decis ioN Gate oPtioNs

mobilise

catalyseand buildcapacity

join

WV works with local stakeholders to identify, connect, encourage and build the capacity of the individuals and small groups concerned about child well-being in their primary focus area. the development facilitator helps them mobilise into active community-based organisations and other groups that contribute to child well-being in the area.

WV works with groups and organisations identified in the primary focus area, to develop appropriate collaborative relationships for shared activities that improve child well-being; and build their resilience and capacity to act for child well-being.

WV identifies and approaches existing collaborations for child well-being, to examine opportunities for WV to join and contribute in a meaningful way to their ongoing work. WV may highlight the needs of the most vulnerable or offer support for a previously neglected child well-being need, if the collaboration does not already do this.

1



1.2the decis ioN Gate tooL at steP 2

Using the Decision Gate tool at the programme impact area level, enables analysis of the wider state and civil society context of the programme.

Using the DG tool at Step 2 gives WV staff:

uadvance warning of critical issues in the programme area, including underlying conflicts and state failure which may influence the community engagement processes.

uimportant information regarding the composition of the starter group, the extent of the community engagement process, and the framing of key questions that will guide the community exploration of child well-being.

uan understanding of a likely need for direct implementation, and the potential composition and capability of the working groups in step 5.

No civil societyorganisations for

chosen child well-being priority

Some weakcivil society

organisations working onchosen child

well-being priority

Civil societyorganisations

active and effective on chosen child well-being priorty

Decision Gate

Mobilise JoinCatalyse and

organisationalstrenthening

Figure 1. the Decision Gate at step 2


Although partnering has been identified as a critical success factor for the development of sustainability and empowerment in WV programmes, the purpose of WV’s approach is to establish the sustained well-being of children, especially the most vulnerable, not to establish partnerships for their own sake. in areas where children have urgent needs and there is no government or civil society capacity to meet these needs, WV will need to take a more direct role in implementing projects. the decision Gate tool at step 2 is designed to identify which key civil society and state characteristics are present or absent, so that WV teams can choose the best response. Where the decision Gate tool indicates a mobilise response, direct implementation by WV may also be needed. this must be planned in consultation with local authorities. the WV team must ensure that any direct implementation is done in ways that build existing local state and civil society capacities, and not to undermine them.

1.3the decis ioN Gate tooL at steP 5

Using the Decision Gate tool primarily at the primary focus area level, enables working groups and WV staff to analyse state and civil society context in a PFA for a chosen child well-being priority.

the Decision Gate Tool can also be used in Step 5, once the findings of the exploration of child well-being have been discussed, and the priority issues for child well-being in each primary focus area, identified and agreed with the wider community and other key stakeholders. Once priority issues are identified, indicators should be discussed using the lens of the chosen child well-being priority for each working group in the primary focus area. WV team members can use participatory methodologies to work through the dG tool with the working group, discussing each indicator and agreeing which statement best describes the civil society situation for that priority issue in their particular primary focus area. in step 5, this tool will give each working group a clearer understanding of their context, helping them to ask careful questions about what is most likely to work, or not, by directing them towards one of the three options.

it is important to remember that the private sector is also active in child well-being, and to consider possible engagements with different private sector entities as the different options are worked through.

capacity building of various sorts (such as intentional ocB or individual mentoring), happens across all the options in the Decision Gate. It can be very difficult to judge the dividing line between activities to build the capacity of organisations, and activities to enable them to develop successful collaborative relationships. By working in networks or coalitions, it is possible to start collaborative work with organisations and groups long before they are actually ready to go into a formal or more ambitious bilateral or multi-stakeholder partnership.

Guidance Note 1: the decisioN Gate GN1


Using the Decision Gate tool at step 5 gives WV staff and working group members:ua shared understanding of the strengths/weakness of state and civil society context for their chosen

child well-being priority in the local programme area (eg Primary Focus area).

uGuidance and a forum for discussion on the most appropriate decision Gate option for WV and Working Group member’s roles and on how they will work together.

ua shared understanding and agreement on the rationale for direct implementation in their working area.

uspace to discuss sustainability implications and agree the parameters of direct intervention with Working Group members in advance.

Where, after careful analysis of the context, a decision on direct implementation has been taken, WV must work out its relationship with the Government and other groups and organisations in the light of its role as an implementer in each of these decision Gate options.

Download the Decision Gate tool from the Partnering Tools at wvi.org/development.

No civil societyorganisations for

chosen child well-being priority

Some weakcivil society

organisations working onchosen child

well-being priority

Civil societyorganisations

active and effective on chosen child well-being priorty

Decision Gate

Mobilise JoinCatalyse and

organisationalstrenthening

Figure 2. the Decision Gate at step 5



Guidance Note 2: the coLLaBoRatioN sPace

This section provides an introduction to the collaboration space; a mechanism that helps map, plan, coordinate

and monitor how stakeholders and working groups choose to work together and organise themselves. this enables effective planning for appropriate interventions for child well-being. a simple stage-by-stage process shows how to develop an individual collaboration space.

section 5 looked at different forms of collaboration, from loose informal relationships to more formal partnerships with one or more partners. three types of collaboration were named: network, coalition and partnership. each of these collaborations could be designed to take into account desired outcomes, the readiness and willingness of organisations to work together, anticipated risks, the values compatibility of the organisations and the timeframes available.

OVERVIEW

2.1 introducing the collaboration space2.2 Using the collaboration space2.3 Building the collaboration space

in practice2.4 Power and influence mapping

2.1the coLLaBoR atioN sPace

The collaboration space is a way of mapping stakeholders and describing all child well-being collaborations in a given area (such as within a community or a programme impact area) at a given time. it enables the

local team to identify what relationships exist between organisations. it also enables planning to develop future collaboration. it helps coordination between different collaborations and partnerships by recognising what each is contributing, and by showing who is involved where.

Mapping of the collaboration space can be built onto existing power or influence mapping. This will help take power dynamics into account during planning. This section looks first at how the collaboration space is used, and then at how to create it. at the end of the section, it introduces simple tools for doing network and power mapping which can help in preparing to build the collaboration space.


Figure 2.1. three different collaborations working in the collaboration space.

Network Coalition Partnership

Collaboration space

2



For example, a group that is already heavily involved in joint projects is probably not an ideal member for a new collaboration; a group that is not involved at all, may require capacity-building or relationship-building.

Looking at the collaboration space will give the programme team, working group or others, an overview of who is working where, on what, and for what shared outcomes. this can be very helpful in planning new collaborations.

In each case, the likely ‘transaction costs’ (in terms of time, financial costs, administration and travel costs) for the group to be part of any new collaboration, can be assessed to see if they would be appropriate in relation to the value of the collaboration goal.

this awareness will also help reduce duplication where advocacy or other engagement with government may be required. For example, if an education coalition has started, but is missing out a key government group, then appropriate action to engage that group in the coalition can be taken.

Mid and long-term planning can be enabled through the collaboration space. the programme team may find it helpful to support the coordination or cooperation of different collaborations. Their members can also meet up through child well-being network meetings, for example, where everyone sees how the wider child well-being priorities of the community are being met, and what gaps or opportunities remain.

1 this relates to assessing partners, and will be covered further in section 11.

2.2UsiNG the coLLaBoR atioN sPace

PLaNNiNG

At its simplest, the collaboration space shows existing collaborations within the programme area (using the definitions in Section 5). To develop the collaboration space, some understanding is needed of:

uWho is involved?uHow are the groups and organisations linked?uHow influential are they?uWhat are their goals?

these questions are explored through the critical Path, particularly in stage 2. the answers to these questions can be further developed using the relationship and influence mapping tool described in 6.4.

however, the collaboration space is more than a device for mapping relationships. a typical relationship map, or a ‘social network map’ shows the strength of links between individuals (or individual groups) but does not always distinguish between different kinds of collaborations. the collaboration space shows both the strength of links and the nature of the collaborations in the area of interest.

there are a number of uses of the sollaboration space. here are four important uses which help to show how the space functions.

Who needs to link with whom, how, and for what purposes?1


over time, the engagement of different groups will change. one anticipated key outcome is that the capacity of most organisations’ capacities to relate to others, will increase. this will be shown in different ways, such as by growth in collaborations, the number of links and the size of shared goals. these can all be mapped on the collaboration space so that such changes will provide a simple record of progress.

it is normal for groups to have an increasing or decreasing engagement in shared projects over time, depending on their relevance to that group. however, it is worth checking that they remain engaged in the wider child well-being goals. From stage 4 onwards, the absence of key stakeholders who may have significant power or influence from within the collaboration space can be noted. appropriate relationship-building approaches can be planned and these will also ensure they are kept informed. the summary of the changes in the collaboration space is also valuable evaluation evidence.

a collaboration space can be mapped for a very local level village, or group of villages; for a primary focus area, a programme impact area or even a cluster level. WV’s connections to different groups (such as the different layers of government, businesses, or large non-governmental organisations) can be used to develop appropriate relationships. this can be particularly helpful for understanding and planning when key decisions are made at higher levels than the programme impact area.

even during the initial stages of intervention, WV may have a very central role seen through the programme team’s engagement in several collaborations. WV may play a catalysing or facilitating role. as the life of the programme continues, the catalysing role should decrease. the ‘centrality’ of any organisation can be seen by the number of links or collaboration memberships it has. in time, WV may move from a more central role to a less central role where it is providing specialist technical support, or providing connections across different layers of government.

this methodology allows stakeholders to build up a picture of what ‘preferred future relationships’ between key stakeholders for child well-being, will look like in their context. the collaborative forms can shift power dynamics and may offer a platform from which conversations with government and other duty bearers can continue into the future.

MoNitoRiNG

UNdeRstaNdiNG MULtiPLe LaYeRs

MoViNG to sUstaiNaBiLitY

How much change is there in working together for child well-being?

How is the programme making best use of connections?

Showing increased ability for new, shared responses to changing CWB needs.

2

3

4

GOING DEEPERThe collaboration space is a simple tool that can be adapted in many ways. By using something very visual, it is easy to show what is happening. It can build trust in transparent partnering processes. A programme team or working group can adapt it as desired. The power and influence mapping tool at the end of this section is of particular help in providing a tool for deeper analysis of multiple layers and for monitoring.

Guidance Note 2: the coLLaBoRatioN sPace GN2


2.3BUiLdiNG the coLLaBoRatioN sPace

it could be all actors related to child well-being in a village or a district; or a primary focus area, or all those related to education at a programme impact area. to decide, think about:

uHow many groups and organisations are involved?uWhat areas of child well-being are relevant?uWhat is the geographical area that is being mapped?

this sets the ‘boundary’ or the outer circle or border of your collaboration space.

Stage 1 - decide on the area and sectors and themes to be represented by the collaboration space that is being worked on.

Stage 2 - First, take the different stakeholders identified through a ‘Who touches a child’s life?’ exercise or similar. Give each stakeholder identified a symbol and place them in a circle on a flipchart.

Non-governmentalorganisations

Nationalgovernment

Citizen’s andchildren’s groups

Faith community

Local governmentproviders

Business

A suggested keyFigure 2.2. open collaboration space

Collaboration space



the symbols are used to identify categories, such as local government, central government, cso, cBo, NGo, iNGo, education or health provider, business (can be further divided into industry, such as a factory or service such as a shop or cafe.staff and the working group members involved should between them, know the different groups concerned, so the stakeholders can be labelled and named appropriately.

different symbols are used to show the different collaborations:

uPartnerships are carefully shown so that organisations linked by agreements, are in the bounded circle.

uCoalitions are shown using a dashed-line boundary, showing a degree of informality, but the boundary shows a clear common goal of interest.

uThe arrow used for networks show that it is primarily about individual relationships and information sharing.

Figure 6.1 above shows how the collaboration space might start to develop. There is a large group that are proactively building relationships with shared connections; there is a coalition developing and there is a smaller partnership of four agencies. however, these are only partly in the partnership; their autonomy remains intact.

Note that the groups are Not exclusive: it is quite possible to be part of the network aNd, for example, the partnership.

Figure 2.3. illustrating the diagram: example of Named organisations in a part of a collaboration space diagram (names from the Local Partnering training simulation)

Stage 3 - Next use the different collaboration forms, as summarised in the table below, and map how they are connected together in the collaboration space.


Detail of a possiblepartnership

Care for Children(Non-governmental org)

Ward Council(Local Government) BBA

(Business)

CoKiToo(Citizen Group)


COLLABORATION FORMS:

DEFINITION: SYMBOL:

NetWoRKa group of individuals or organisations who, on a voluntary basis, exchange information, to some extent coordinate actions, and otherwise explore together an area of common interest or need.

coaLitioNan active relationship between organisations to enhance each one’s contribution to a common or complementary aim through co-ordination and co-operation. it requires some level of agreement; benefits and risks are mainly shared.

PaRtNeRshiP an active relationship between organisations which has reached a defined stage of co-operation. This is outlined and governed by a clear agreement to combine their resources and expertise to carry out a specific set of activities toward a shared objective. Both benefits and risks are shared between partners in what is often a process of co-creation.

BiLateRaL PaRtNeRshiP

n active relationship between two organisations which has reached a defined stage of co-operation. This is outlined and governed by an informal or formal agreement, to combine their resources and expertise to carry out a specific set of activities. Benefits and risks are shared between both partners in what is often a process of co-creation.

coNtRact(also sub-contract or sub-grant)

A tightly defined contract-based relationship where payment is normally transacted for a service or product.

table 2.3. Collaboration forms



a child well-being network for a primary focusa area with a responsibility for stewarding an overview of goals and priorities resulting from the child well-being summit, can be facilitated. the goals from the summit already have shared ownership by all the participants. WV needs to be careful, in planning for sustainable ownership, about taking responsibility for facilitating a cWB network, but it is a legitimate role.

the programme team can facilitate the cWB initially, and then train others to take over this role. in Figure 6.8, the CWB network includes many members, including nearly all of the members of both the non-formal education project and the child rights coalition. this is because when a group is in a partnership, it is important to remain connected to others for the purposes of information sharing, and for learning about wider concerns and new interventions for child well-being.

Stage 4 - this stage enables the plotting of more detail (Figure ?) and also wider relationships (Figure 6.8). The organisations named in this illustration of a partnership are taken from the Local Partnering Training simulation.

Figure 2.4. three different collaborations working in the collaboration space.

discussion questions? What are the practical benefits for using the Collaboration space in your programme?

? how many potential partners exist in the local area – what questions can you answer using the collaboration space?

? how would you start to draw the collaboration space in your context? Make plans to set this up.


Child rightscoalition

Child well being network

Non-formaleducation

partnership


2.4P oW e R a N d i N F LU e N c e M a P P i N G

Network or relationship mapping provides a great start to building the collaboration space. it is a tool that can usefully follow on from the initial brainstorm of ‘who touches a child’s life’ looked at in section 1. a

simple participatory process called Net-Map is recommended to enable participants to create a ‘network and influence’ diagram of different stakeholders. This influence map helps identify who has strategic relationships and influence, to help working groups in their planning. There are many ways of doing this mapping and three examples follow with differing emphases which provide useful models.

instructions to create a Net-Map can be found at: http://netmap.wordpress.com/about/. this has been applied within WV to produce the Urban Relationships and Influence Mapping tool available at the Urban community of Practice on wvcentral.

to help move from the relationship map to the collaboration space, it is helpful to use the same symbols for different groups and organisations. Note that drawing the map is not as important as using the tool to answer the following questions.

? Who is involved?

? how are the groups and organisations linked?

? How influential are they?

? What are their goals?

As a catalyst or facilitator, remember that an organisation’s capacity to relate is a critical indicator of its ability to be a good partner.

? abukari, M., schiffer, e., & hauck, J. Influence Network Mapping, iFad, (2009).

TO O L S the collaboration space tool (as described above)

Netmap: http://netmap.wordpress.com/aboutUrban Relationships and Influence Mapping(World Vision Central, Ur-

ban Programming community of Practice)the onion tool



World Vision’s impact in a community depends upon the different kinds of relationship with all the different

groups and organisations that affect children. sustainable change for children depends on identifying the stakeholders and ways of maintaining values about children as well as unlocking appropriate resources. World Vision’s christian identity and calling gives naturally shared values and concerns with local churches. these can then be built on so that churches can play their best possible role in creating an environment that is good for children. other faith communities have very similar resources and contributions to make to child well-being. and the church and other faith communities are enduring and integral parts of the community, unlike WV which will always be a temporary outsider.

In programming, it is important early on to get to know the churches, other faith groups, and their relationships in the community. Sometimes bad relationships exist between different faith groups. Sometimes finding a common interest and need in child well-being brings these groups together, in good ways that were previously unimaginable in the community.

All of the basic partnering approaches, skills and processes are relevant to churches and other faith groups. Mutual benefit, transparency and equity are as fundamental as with a partner from any other sector (faith groups are generally seen as being a part of civil society). And just as it is important to recognise the unique characteristics of, for example a business group, it is important to consider the unique features of faith groups. Here faith groups are considered as potential partners and long-term contributors to child well-being. References to specialist information and models are included at the end.

OVERVIEW

Guidance Note 3: LocaL chURches aNd otheR Faith coMMUNities

3.1LocaL chURches

3.1 Local churches3.2 What the church can contribute to

child well-being3.3 church relationships and possible

discrimination 3.4 Faith-based organisations3.5 other faith communities and en-

gaging with them3.6 The diversity of faith communities3.7 Faith Groups, child Protection and

due diligence3.8 Connections


In Local churches are a life-force for sustained child well-being. Because of the christian emphasis on the poor and marginalised, WV can expect to find the local church a key ally in care for the most vulnerable,

and a partner in support, prayer and encouragement as well as spiritual nurture and support for staff.

With their many resources such as prayer, teaching and moral leadership, volunteers, infrastructure and much more, local churches can be extremely helpful partners in many different ways. theologically, a church is not so much a building or an organisation, but a group of people. these people are members of the wider community, and many times include the poor and marginalised, including most vulnerable children. so the church can give access to vulnerable children, and detailed knowledge about needs. the trust that the local church has established in the wider community gives a lot of social capital and legiti-macy to progress work for children.

3



3.2What the chURch caN coNtRiBUte to chiLd WeLL-BeiNG

There are many possible resources, in the widest possible sense, that the church can contribute to children’s well-being, from prayer through to classrooms.

the following list shows some of the main resources churches can contribute as partners for child well-being:

Spiritual prayer, moral leadership, the ability to influence key social change issues

Human skills and technical ability, time, volunteers

Social respect, networks, organisational structures, access to all the members

Physical buildings, land, and often vehicles etc

Financial Money

Figure 3.1


Why partner with churches and other faith communities?

jchurches and other faith communities can play a crucial role in sustaining transformation, economically, environmentally, socially, psychologically and spiritually, during and after WV’s presence.

kchurches are powerful instruments to shape social values and promote responsible behaviours that respect the dignity and sanctity of all life.

lFaith communities serve as important channels of communication for social change and transformation because of their access to family & personal spheres. Faith leaders are skilled & influential communicators who reach the hearts and minds of their people.

mIn conflicts, churches and other faith communities can play a significant role in mediation and reconciliation, and advocate for the protection of children and other vulnerable community members.

nchurches and other faith communities are often present in areas where governments are distant from people. they can be powerful actors in advancing the MdGs, alleviating poverty, addressing gender disparities, protecting children, addressing child and maternal health and responding to hiV and aids.

3.3chURch ReLatioNshiPs aNd PossiBLe discRiMiNatioN

It is a principle of the christian commitments Protocols that working with churches is based on non-discrimination. that means that WV can only partner with churches and FBos on child well-being

activities when there is not any discrimination. in other words, these services must be provided to children and families from any religious group (or caste or ethnicity, etc).

some careful negotiations can take place within the local church to develop this. Understanding should be built up with other partners that any shared projects are taking place without any discrimination or any actions that could be perceived as coercive. For these reasons, World Vision needs to find common cause with them on child well-being priorities, and accept them as valued partners in the pursuit of child well-being.of course, many faith communities also have evangelistic or proselytising plans: they want to bring children from outside into their faith community. Whilst these activities may be legitimate, World Vision will not pro-mote these activities. shared projects are not a place for faith communities to be recruiting.

Guidance Note 3: LocaL chURches aNd otheR Faith coMMUNities GN3


3.4Faith-Based oRGaNisatioNs

Faith-based organisations (FBOs) are community organisations or NGOs that have specific social goals, and a specifically religious mandate and identity. World Vision is a faith-based organisation. FBOs exist

because they have a task or goal to complete. on the other hand, faith communities exist because they draw together people of the same faith in an area. FBos may not have the same quality of social capital and membership of the local community (unless, for example, they started as a programme of a church or mosque). But they can also be very helpful partners.

3.5otheR Faith coMMUNities aNd eNGaGiNG With theM

Mosques, temples, gurdwaras, synagogues, and other faith communities are focal points for groups of people with a shared religion, just like churches. and also just like churches, they provide moral

leadership in their communities and impact the children both in and around their communities, and it may be very practical to partner with them. they have more or less the same assets as churches.

Just because they do not share specific Christian convictions with World Vision, it is very likely that there will be many shared values that can be explored and developed together. as with churches, careful negotiation needs to take place to ensure that they offer services to children without discrimination.

3.6the diVeRsitY oF Faith coMMUNities

Across the world, there is a bewildering range of faith communities, with great diversity in each religion; for example churches can belong to one of thousands of denominations within broader categories.

Practitioners need to be careful to recognise the different faith groups in their community, and get specialist support if needed, particularly where there are concerns about identity and conflict. These will be particularly of concern where there are power differences: for example if one marginalised group in the community adheres to one faith or denomination, and the more powerful group is of another religious identity.

shared concern for child well-being can be unifying and change-making. For example, in ethiopia, WV has been able to broker Faith Based Forums. these forums bring different christian and Muslim leaders together to plan and work for well-being of children where previously there was little dialogue or planning together. They have made significant progress in morally difficult areas, such as the reduction of harmful traditional practices to children. and where religious tension has been fuelled, the forums were able to bring peace with a common vision for peace and the well-being of all of their children.



3.7Faith GRoUPs, chiLd PRotectioN aNd dUe diLiGeNce

Sadly, members of faith groups – christian and non-christian – have been guilty of many kinds of child protection abuses, from traditional harmful practices through to sexual abuse; sometimes the faith group

itself has ‘covered up’ to prevent justice being done. if any faith group wants to collaborate in child well-being then in every case, individuals (volunteers, leaders etc.) and groups MUst be subject to full due diligence, including child protection as well as looking at, for example, financial and governance issues. If appropriate, faith groups can and should be included in any capacity-building initiatives to allow them to become child safe-organisations that can play a full role in partnership for child well-being goals. But if a church or other faith group is not willing to do due diligence and make full commitment to becoming an organisation that is safe for children, then its role as a partner must be very carefully limited. these rules, are, of course, true for any community group or other partner working with children.

Critical Path Step 5 and 6, and Partnering Cycle ‘Scoping and Building’: uchoosing the right collaboration form depending on risks and trust

uthe collaboration space

uestablishing ground rules for a partnership

uunderstanding partners

Critical Path Step 7, Partnering Cycle, Revisingumonitoring and evaluating

3.8coNNectioNs

Guidance Note 3: LocaL chURches aNd otheR Faith coMMUNities GN3


cRiteRia FoR PaRtNeRs: 1. Shared operational values: Partners that understand and accept WV’s vision, mission statement, core values and cc policies and share our operational values in how we pursue child well-being.

2. Cooperation: churches, faith communities and FBos that are willing to co-operate with other churches and christian faith-based and other world religions organisations working in the area.

3. Non-discrimination: churches and FBos that seek to serve all segments in the community in pursuit of child well-being without discrimination.

Other essential resources: - – (add wvcentral references)channels of hope – for mobilising and awareness building, can be used with churches and mosques

celebrating Families – faith communities engaging with families

the do, don’t do and assure section of the christian commitments Protocols are extremely helpful to review to help develop good partnering behaviours to churches and other groups:

https://www.wvcentral.org/cc/cc%20Resource%20Library/Policies%20and%20Guidelines/christian%20commitments%20Protocols%20and%20Guidelines%20June%202012.pdf

Based on this guidance, the summary for working with partners is as follows (page 4):

With respect to other faith groups, more detail of guidelines and policies on inter-faith relations can be found at: https://www.wvcentral.org/cc/cc%20Resource%20Library/Forms/Name.aspx?RootFolder=%2fcc%2fcc%20Resource%20Library%2finterfaith%20Relations&Folder



This section examines how partners can learn to work closely alongside each other, through managing their differences and

understanding their alignment to various values and aspects of the partnership. it also looks at how to plan together to manage potential risks without damaging the partnership. it contains a number of helpful exercises and tools to support partners through the early stages of partnership.

4.1 introducing strategic alignment4.2 Understanding continuums4.3 The five continuums4.4 Using the continuums4.5 Managing risk together4.6 Section summary

OVERVIEW

Guidance Note 4: stRateGic aLiGNMeNt & RisK MaNaGeMeNt

4.1iNtRodUciNG stRateGic aLiGNMeNt

There are five qualities about a partnership that affect the ability of partners to participate effectively in shared projects:

urisks of the partnership to the partner

vthe size of the goal

wthe shared values

xthe timespan

ythe amount of practical shared working required (‘closeness’)


a facilitator needs to take time to recognise and manage differences in strategic alignment. if there is any doubt, start with smaller partnership goals and succeed in making them work, as a way to longer-term ambition and success.

it is essential that assessment of each partner’s ability to function in the partnership is regularly made so that appropriate adjustments and communications can be made. this is particularly true when:

u partners come from different sectors

u partners are of different sizes

u partners may have different kinds of history and expectations

u partners have different kinds of governance and accountability

u partners have different power and resources.

None of these is a bad thing in itself, but the differences will show up in a partnership and can cause difficulty if they are not understood and managed. Partnering needs to value difference and diversity, because these enable innovation, creativity and reach. Find ways to recognise the realities of others and adapt to them, or enable partners to adapt to each other.

in terms of the partnering cycle, it is extremely helpful to use ‘continuums’ to review the partnership before signing an agreement, again if issues occur, and at reviewing and revising stages.

tiP: continuums are different from understanding an individual group’s ability to work in partnership, their relational abilities, their integrity and organisational capacities. those issues are addressed in Understanding Partners (section 2).

4



4.2UNdeRstaNdiNG coNtiNUUMs

To look at partners’ strategic alignment, five ‘continuums’ are used. A ‘continuum’ means a continuous series, no part of which is noticeably different from the parts immediately next to it, although the ends or

extremes of it are very different from each other. each part of it looks very similar to the last.

Figure 1. example of three continuums (black to white, colours of the rainbow, and hot to cold)

The continuums are not ways of assessing a partnership itself.

This is a tool to assess how well the planned shared project is fitted to the partners’ needs and capacities. It can be used in ‘building and scoping’ or at ‘sustaining outcomes’ phases of the Partnering Cycle.


The location on the continuum is not the most important question, but rather the relationship to the other partnersand whatever challenges arise for the partnership from this. if there is a big gap between one partner and the others, or just a wide spread along the continuum, that means there is potential for a problem and also suggests key topics for discussion.

John Lennon said “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” this is especially true within partnerships, and the facilitator needs to care about making sure the partners and partnership can cope with all the unexpected events of real life by being strategically aligned. this is more important than over ambitious planning that does not respect the messiness of real life.

Where are individual partners on the continuums of collaboration?

How risky? How close? How long? Sharedvalues?

How biggoals?

HIGH RISK SHAREDWORKING

LONGPROJECT

VALUES HELDIN COMMON

BIG,AMBITIOUS

GOAL

LOW RISKSEPARATEWORKING

SHORTPROJECT

DIFFERENTVALUES

SMALL, EASYGOAL

H I G H

L O W

Figure 2. The five continuums

Guidance Note 4: stRateGic aLiGNMeNt & RisK MaNaGeMeNt GN4


4.3the F iVe coNtiNUUMs

What does it mean?The closer the individual organisation’s values are to the implicit or explicit shared values of the partnership, the easier it may be to have difficult conversations, particularly those related to genuine interests of the groups and power issues.

In any plan, values are usually related to costs, about people or about tolerance. it is important to think about values that would cause difficulty with how the partnership intends to work or what its goals are.

Facilitator implications:u Values are important, but they are very subjective. as everyone has experienced, sometimes

individual’s or group’s stated values do not match with their behaviours and action.

u In multi-sectoral partnering, it is not necessarily a problem to have different values: it is having values that contradict the plans or purposes of the partnership that is most problematic.

u If two partners have such different values that they cannot respect each other, that is a problem. the facilitator needs to help them explore to see if they can recognise and value the contributions and role of each other.

shaRed VaLUesHow close are the partner’s values to the growing shared values within the partnership?

1

LOW HIGH

partner considers there to be large differences within the group

partner considers their values to be

widely shared



What does it mean?It becomes clear if any partner wants to go faster or slower than the rest of the group.

For some partners, delivery may be urgent: there could be a donor deadline for a project, or a push to achieve a government target. For another, there may be lots of time, many volunteers requiring lots of attention, and little urgency on the shared proejct? or one organisation may simply be very busy, and not ready to commit enough resources for the next three months? and of course, but very importantly, different partners may simply have different planning cycles that make shared planning organisationally difficult.

any of these issues could cause real tension about the resourcing and delivery of the shared project. Transparency is needed in negotiation so that the shared project does not fall victim to competing deadlines or differing approaches to development. this kind of transparency is about deliberately revealing issues, interests, and what matters.

Facilitator implications:u ensure genuine transparency between partners about any time pressures they are under. When do

they need to show results? When can they commit to their parts of the plan?

u Look at the interests and accountabilities of each partner. are they clearly understood so that delivery can be on time, and that they meet their interests, and accountabilities?

tiMesPaNFor how long does the partner want to engage in the shared project?

2

LOW HIGH

a quick, shared project (the facilitator should clarify)

long time span for the project



What does it mean?this shows how much value is put on the shared project by that partner. The issues raised include the partner’s current ambition and commitment to the shared project

Facilitator implications:If one group has huge ambitions, while the others have smaller goals for the partnership, it could stress the partnership. Possible approaches are:

u to suggest renegotiating smaller, more achievable goals, while keeping a longer-term ambition for the larger goals

u to discuss whether a smaller goal is relevant and exciting enough to actually motivate the partners

u to ensure that a finally agreed goal will provide sufficient motivation to meet the genuine interests of the partners, will deal with their accountabilities, and is manageable.

if there are big differences, the perceived equity may be too low for a strong partnership.

What does it mean?one partner may feel that having contributed time to planning and made a commitment to material resources, they have a low commitment to actually ‘doing it’ - in terms of staff time through the shared project. another may feel that their staff should be working together on a daily basis to deliver project activities.

Facilitator implications:u this is something to consider carefully and openly in structuring, planning and resourcing processes.

Make sure that the understanding of what is required on a day-to-day basis is made clear; in particular participant’s expectations of each other in on-going direct activity as part of the shared project.

shaRed GoaL

cLoseNess

How important is the shared goal for that partner?

How much shared decision-making and shared-working does this partner expect to be involved with?

3

4

LOW HIGH

LOW HIGH

the shared goal is less important

little involvement

the shared goal is very important

lots of working together



What does it mean?this will reveal whether the risks to partners are different, and too high for one or more partners. Many risks are negotiated upfront with due diligence processes. however, partners reasonably remain concerned about risks. it could be, for example, that the shared goals and chemistry or trust between individuals is all good, but one partner’s organisation is seen as not supporting the shared goals. or there may remain risks to partner reputation.

Of all the five partnership qualities considered here, risk and shared goal size are most likely to reveal differences in power and size between the organisations. the risks of involvement to a community organisation, where their two full-time staff will be involved every day, is probably far less than the involvement of a larger government department. in addition, success would matter more to that community organisation.

there is also the opposite problem that a community organisation may go ‘rogue’ and do and say things that a local government unit cannot be associated with. To get the benefits of partnering, the community organisation may need to choose to be careful about what it says in public.

there is always a risk, too, of the negotiator or representative of an organisation not being able to manage their double accountabilities well enough. so while they may be entirely committed to the partnership, their organisation does not understand or commit enough. this is a risk to the partnership that needs to be managed.

Facilitator implications:u if the risk is about representatives managing their accountabilities, this can be approached through

discussions about the status of the representative, and their ability to create commitment within their organisation.

u Risks related to power need careful handling and negotiation. these usually require the more powerful or larger partner to agree to go at an appropriate level and speed to give less powerful organisations confidence or to find another way of balancing the risks.

u Managing risk becomes much easier when there is trust due to previous good experience. this means not going too fast for the partnership, but starting with easily managed goals.

R isKHow important are the risks (such as risks of association, of failure or inefficiency) of the shared project to the partner?

5

LOW HIGH

not risky for that partner

very risky for that partner



4.4UsiNG the coNtiNUUMs

The continuums do not have an objective scoring system, but require intelligent interpretation. it may be that a facilitator does this by themselves, based on their knowledge of the partners, or it could be done

within the group of partners (as long as the facilitator is confident that partners would reveal enough of their true concerns to make it realistic).

Working through the five questions is the critical action. A large pictorial representation can be useful for creating a dialogue.

case stUdY

Partnering continuums in the imaginary district of Kelidas:• cFc is an international NGo• cokitoo is a small community organisation• BBa is a business group• ‘chief’ represents the elected ward council

Questions:? Which of the continuums would give

you, as facilitator, most concern before signing a partnership agreement?

? What actions might you take to enable the partnership to succeed?

Cokitoo

CFC

BBA

chief

BBA

chief

Cokitoo

Cokitoo

chief

BBA

CFC

Cokitoo

BBA

chief

CFCBBA

CFC

chief

Cokitoo

H I G H

L O W

CFC



Facilitator implications: Working with the partnership’s speed limitu Most of what has been discussed here is about finding a ‘safe speed’ for the

partnership. a safe speed is one where all the partners are moving towards the goal, getting there together, and not creating unnecessary problems that could compromise the partnership later. the facilitator needs to work carefully with the partners to find a speed that is fast enough to create energy, and slow enough to create safety.

u in time, a history of success, of trust, of organisations meeting their commitments, and increasingly good chemistry between the representatives, will allow the partnership speed limits to increase.

4.5MaNaGiNG RisK toGetheR

Partnering – along with most daily activities – has inherent risks. to be a good partner requires careful thinking through the likelihood of individual risk factors occurring, and the cost of such things happening.

the ideas below are a very basic guide to thinking through risk.

The possible risks in a partnership or other collaboration are can be grouped into the following five categories:

financial risks:

reputation risks:

resource conflict:

over reliance:

assurance:

unexpected costs arriving or other financial management issues and irregularities.

for example, of association with an undesirable group or an undesirable activity or product.

the classic example being two NGos who could be great partners with many synergies, fighting over the same donor.

on a partner to deliver another organisation’s objectives and activities, implying a loss of control.

seeking reassurance on how well the partnership and partner organisations are managing their own risks.

discussion questionsManaging risk requires careful, shared understanding of the following questions:

? What are our objectives?

? can we identify the things that would stop us achieving these?

? Can we find ways of mitigating them?



Risks need to be articulated by each different partner, because each partner will have their own unique perspective on risks within the partnership, and there will be differences in the severity of risks to

different partners.

When considering risks, it is possible to see why mutual benefit, equity and transparency are so important. First, equity shows how risk is shared. Mutual benefit shows why taking that risk is valuable for each group. third, transparency builds up trust both about each other’s internal processes, and any external pressures that will impact on each partner’s ability to contribute their share to the shared project.

Indicators of good risk management in a partnership are:ua common understanding by all partners of the risks and opportunities, and how they will

be managed.

uan environment that allows the partnership to anticipate and respond to change.

uOpen, responsive planning that encourages forward thinking, thus minimising unwelcome surprises and prevents damage, loss and cost of the risks to all partners.

uVisible concern about risk - all partners are involved in raising risk awareness and sharing accountability.

uCareful communication which, in turn, improves the basis for strategy setting, performance management and decision making.

MaNaGiNG RisK

Each partner needs to think through their own risks within the partnership. together, the partners need to consider what working practices they need to agree, and what they would like to put into their

partnership agreement.

it is important in managing risk, to be very clear about ‘chemistry’ in partnership: recognising that relationships matter. successful collaborations put greatest emphasis on the human side of the process.

the partners need to transparently and carefully consider the possible risks, how likely they are to occur, and the cost or impact of those risks happening. then they can plan.

Four ‘ts’ summarise the ways that risks can be managed. The first two are preferable strategies, the third and fourth more drastic.



table ?. Four Ts of risk managementT DEFINTION

utReat

• Use preventive actions. • do necessary capacity building together to be sure all the necessary

competences are present. For example, if financial issues are a big risk, the partners can look carefully at each other’s financial records, agree how to manage finances to high enough standards and discuss where capacity building will help achieve those standards.

vtoLeRate

• some risks partners will choose to live with; maybe they are very unlikely to occur or felt to be manageable. it is helpful to identify such risks and find contingency measures, if possible, in case the risks do happen. examples of such risk would include the resignation of key staff from partner organisations, or one partner not being able to make a contribution in time where this contribution could come from elsewhere, or be postponed, without harming the overall project.

• the reality of things changing, as discussed above, means that good communications and good facilitation of the collaboration are critical ‘tolerating risk’ strategies. if there is good communication and facilitation, the partnership is in a good position to address challenges and changes.

wteRMiNate• Know when to get out! the partnership and partners need to be

prepared to quit if it is too costly for them individually or as a group. this does happen on occasion and needs to be recognised. it can even happen when a partnership is largely successful but, perhaps, too costly for one partner. this termination is, of course, different from the ending of a partnership when a shared project has been successfully completed.

xtRaNsFeR• Find a way to get somebody else to take the risk. in a partnership,

financial contracts between partners regarding payments would be one way of transferring risk to another partner. this is a ‘real life’ activity and can be a good approach, but of course it can cause difficulties where one partner feels pressured to take another’s risks.

4.6sectioN sUMMaRY

Using the tools and approaches in this section should enable a facilitator to guide a group through a careful process of strategic alignment to the right shared goal for that partnership. Five key issues are

suggested to be of critical important – goal size and risk, time, values and closeness of shared working.

Perceived risk is often a barrier to good partnering and so a simple strategy can be followed, using plans to ‘treat’ or ‘tolerate’ identified risks.

But both strategic alignment and risk management will be of little value if human and organisational relationships of trust and respect are not being nurtured across the partnership.



The importance of good meeting facilitation in the context of a multi-stakeholder process is covered in

this section. it looks at what makes a good facilitator, the essential components of a good meeting and how to prepare and plan well.

5.1 a well-prepared facilitator5.2 a good facilitator5.3 Planning a meeting5.4 Worked example of a meeting plan

OVERVIEW

Guidance Note 5: FaciLitatiNG eFFectiVe MeetiNGs


FaciLitatioN helps participants to work together towards a specific goal by enabling the process, while they remain focused on the content.

The facilitator supports the process, the participants own the content and decisions.

Facilitating a multi-stakeholder, multi-meeting process requires a series of well-facilitated meetings for each stage. This will create the foundation for a strong partnership.

A partnership broker needs three things:

jThe basics of becoming a good facilitator through training and practising: even naturally good facilitators need to work hard to practice their skills, intuition and ability to ask questions, so that they are able to work in tricky situations and work through the unexpected. this is not covered in Local Partnering.

kA good understanding of the partnership processes, as described in section 5 and later.

lThe tools to deliver good meetings in a multi-stakeholder process.

this third part is the focus of this section.

The better prepared the facilitator; the better the meeting is likely to be. a good facilitator will have worked carefully through their guidelines to create their own plan. The plan must fit the partners and

the facilitator – don’t just copy someone else’s or use an old one for the sake of it.

When changes and surprises come, flexibility will be needed. So - be well prepared – and prepared to adapt! consider what other tools available to the facilitator that can be used in case of need. always be ready and open for a ‘people movement’ among participants, towards a better way to get things done.

5



5.1 a WeLL-PRePaRed FaciLitatoR

Here are some helpful reminders of what to consider in preparation:

uValue what is local, indigenous, and overlooked: Whose knowledge counts? in too many meetings and other facilitation events, the voices of teachers, facilitators and authorities are those most heard. Respect each partner representative as responsible for what they bring to the meeting, in terms of contributions and even their own learning. the needs of the potential partners should frame the design of your meeting plan.

uPrepare the right people: ensure that the partner representatives understand the meeting objectives so far as is possible before the meeting.

uBuild the whole together. Recognise that the ‘whole’ understanding of an issue will be more than any one person is able to see. each partner has expertise in one area of the issue, but less or little knowledge of another’s. Multi-stakeholder planning facilitation includes space, time and well-chosen activities for each stakeholder to listen to each other and together build a wider and richer understanding of the whole issue, including each other’s roles.

Remember that less powerful voices in the group may often have a richer or very different understanding than many others. careful facilitation will help those voices speak and be valued for their insight.

uEmbrace complexity: creating space for different voices and unexpected processes can feel messy. But recognizing and embracing diversity and complexity as a facilitator opens the partnership process to exploration and innovation. trying to ‘control’ and over-manage each meeting can frustrate participants and make differences into difficulties.

uMake ‘together’ work: Use dialogue, teamwork and small groups to promote interaction, discussion and dialogue and show that together the partners can succeed.

uDevelop sticky questions: ‘sticky’ questions are persistent and thought-provoking questions which challenge the participants to go deeply into the core topic. sticky questions can be thorny, uncomfortable or provocative, but they are designed to ensure the group reaches to the heart of the matter.

uValue the boundaries: Every facilitation event raises issues and topics which do not fit within the boundaries of the event. design an effective means of capturing those additional issues, and an agreed process to decide what to do with them (for example, ensure 5 minutes at the end to deal with the “Issues arising” flipchart).

uExplore power shifts: help the participants practice listening to each other. also encourage participants to take turns in learning how to lead this process (remember that empowerment is taken, not given!) Find ways to enable this power shifting equitably, so that equal respect continues to be given to each partner and is not just based on individual or organisational status.


5.2a Good FaciLitatoR

ListeNs WeLL

• attentive to what participants bring• makes it clear that the facilitator does not ‘own’ the content

of the meeting• hears key moments and ideas that can lead to breakthrough

a caReFUL ModeRatoR

• able to lead process without dominating the agenda• not dominating, but balancing

MiXes a VaRietY oF LeaRNiNG stYLes

• keeps things moving and prevents the meeting getting ‘stuck in a rut’ and becoming predictable or boring

aNaLYses• able to help participants dig deeper and find ways to analyse

what they mean

MotiVates aNd BUiLd PaRticiPaNts’ coNFideNce

• demonstrates progress through the meeting outputs and objectives shows to participants

ResPectFUL• the participants trust that the facilitator is serving their needs

and they can respect each other.

VaLUes diVeRGeNt VieWs

• Respect for each other can be built through recognising different points of view and exploring them sensitively.

eNcoURaGes diVeRsitY, aNd the eXPRessioN oF diFFeReNce

• these can be the source of insight and innovation, but the facilitator needs to choose how fast to go, maintaining safety while recognising difference can be contentious.

eNaBLes siLeNces as a LeaRNiNG MoMeNt

• thinking often happens in the quiet moments.

coMMUNicates - audibly, visually and clearly

• clarity of instruction and purpose is the bedrock of giving safety and direction to the facilitation.

eMotioNaLLY seNsitiVe

• Listens to both the words but to the feelings behind the words. this is particularly important where there are distinct power differences between participants, as well as basics such as ensuring everyone remains engaged or doesn’t fall asleep.

PRoVides a saFe eNViRoNMeNt - emotionally and physically

• essential to enabling vulnerable participants to share openly.

cULtURaLLY aWaRe• willing to respect culture and be aware when practices

challenge cultural norms and expectations

table 1. Characteristics of a good facilitator

Guidance Note 5: FaciLitatiNG eFFectiVe MeetiNGs GN5


5.3PLaNNiNG a MeetiNG

1. Purpose of the meeting

What is the outcome expected from this meeting?

2. Background and context

Where are participants coming from together and individually? What are they moving towards?

3. Stages What outputs in the meeting will enable the outcome to be met?

4. Tools to use at any stage

how can participants create those outputs?

5. Finalise outputs and agreements

What were the final decision(s) made?

6. Review What happened: information, ideas, agreements and commitments?

7. Next stages What are participants going to do next, both together and individually?

table 2. The key components of a facilitator’s task

There are seven key elements of structuring a meeting, shown below. after that, each of these stages will be reviewed and some ways suggested to make them work well. Getting the meeting outcome right is

the essential foundation.

FaciLitatoR or PaRtNeRshiP BRoKeR

The partnership broker is responsible for ensuring good meeting facilitation as well as guiding the process through the Partnering Cycle. Sometimes it might be appropriate to have another individual be the chair or facilitator for the meeting itself. Rotating the facilitation between partners can also be good to build trust. The partnership broker must ensure that practical and fair facilitation is always done.

eXaMPLe FRoM the FieLd In Cankuzo ADP, Burundi, World Vision’s staff brought together the partners but then supported the local authority to facilitate the meetings. This made the process more acceptable to each partner, and so they came together with a much greater willingness to contribute resources.



PURPose oF the MeetiNGWhat is the outcome expected from this meeting?

1

Use the Partnering cycle to determine the purpose of the meeting. the meeting might be for decision-making, but could also be consultation, problem-solving, or several of the above.Whenever the group goes off track, having a clear and aligned purpose to fall back on, contrib-utes to a relevant discussion and time well spent.ensure to explain the purpose in advance to participants, and then agree with everyone the pur-pose at the beginning, and enhance or revise if needed.

BacKGRoUNd aNd coNteXtWhere are participants coming from together and individually?What are they moving towards?

2

There are three elements to thinking through the background and context:

jThe story line Every facilitation process needs a flow; a narrative or a story line. this story line is not

interested in the results of the facilitation (the information or decisions), but in documenting the journey; the well-being of the participants and how effectively they worked together. so as the meeting objectives are built, and each stage and activity is planned, the facilitator is also building up a shared story of the participants. this story includes the moments of sharing and dialogue, the emotional ups and downs, the silences and also the moments of breakthrough for new understanding and agreement.

kFocus on context

The facilitator’s awareness of the broader context for the topic or issue is critical to successful facilitation.

also, as the facilitator gains understanding of the resources, needs and opportunities of each participant, they build clarity on what fits best inside the meeting boundaries, and what should remain outside. the size, depth and scale of the topic need to match the needs, capacity, time and and resources of the participants.

the facilitator needs to maintain these clear boundaries (though they should anticipate that participants will sometimes challenge and change those boundaries midway through the event!).

lUnderstanding the local history and future of each issue every topic or issue has both an individual stakeholder or joint history, and an anticipated future, for

the participants. these histories and futures may or may not become part of the facilitation design, but it is important they are understood by the facilitator, so that the learning objective and design meet the stakeholders’ contexts, histories and anticipated futures around the topic.



staGesWhat outputs in the meeting will enable the outcome to be met?

3

Find ways to ensure the comfort and social safety for all participants. think about the location and facilities (for example, in an office, under a tree, in which village or city district?).

Decide what clear outputs will fit the meeting purpose. These outputs may be ‘soft’ (such as new understanding or team building), or ‘hard’ (such as records of information shared, agreements, a report, a handout or a digital recording).

design a stage-by-stage plan for the session or workshop, which leads to that meeting’s overall learning objective.

1st - Create a safe learning space

2nd - Decide the outputs for this meeting

3rd - Design a stage-by-stage plan

eXaMPLe:Learning objective: to plan for resource mobilisation for the new community-based children’s centre

Plan: By the end of this one-hour meeting we will have:

u reviewed lists of resources that will be needed (such as human, financial, material, social) developed by partners since the last meeting

u identified the resources available from within the group

u identified the resources that need to be found externally

u decided who will bring what resources within the group

u agreed a working group to find ways to access external resources

u agreed when internal resource commitments must be made

u planned the general objective and date for the next meeting.



tooLs to Use at aNY staGeHow can participants create those outputs?

4

u For each stage decide the main activity, the processes and time required, and the needed resources and inputs.

u in choosing activities, apply a full range of adult learning techniques that address the range of learning styles.

u think about how to use visuals, especially recording on flipchart, so that a visual record of process, ideas and agreements is created.

u establish moments to hear, see and do, engaging the participants in ideas, feelings and actions. Allow the meeting to be action learning.

UsiNG VisUaLs WeLLsometimes a small group that is working intimately and effectively may not need to make visual records (as long as someone is making notes of key ideas and agreements). But in general, if there are more than three or four participants, if there are power imbalances or disagreements, or any distrust of the facilitation process, then careful visual recording is extremely helpful.

Participants need to understand and use such recordings (this is skill that needs to be learned), just as a facilitator needs to learn the skills of listening carefully and recording with appropriate transparency, accuracy and detail.

done well, visual records show that the participants are the owners of the meeting outputs, and that the facilitator is genuinely listening and responding and not driving their own agenda.

Good visuals are an extremely helpful way of keeping records for future reference, agreements, challenges and information.

Use flipcharts, thick pens and whatever else is helpful. a digital camera can be used to make an instant, high quality record of a meeting output.

heLPFUL MeetiNG tooLs:u an eNeRGiZeR can warm people up.

u iNtRodUctioNs are needed if there are new people.

u ReVieW of progress to date.

u sWot - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

u PRioRitisatioN GRid – using sticky dots etc

u FoRce FieLd aNaLYsis – use arrows to show forces ‘for’ change and ‘against’ change, and then list the forces under the relevant arrow

u Go-RoUNd – everyone takes it in turn to speak

u NostUeso ensures that everyone has a chance to speak (a variation on Go-Round). Use the funny-sounding acronym ‘NostUeso’: ‘No one speaks twice Until everyone speaks once!’)

u sMaLL GRoUPs, PaiRs – break up into small groups or pairs to get deeper and without the pressure of performing in front of the group.

u PLUs-MiNUs-iNteRestiNG – use to analyse a question

Choose tools that will:

u Allow practical contribution to achieving the meeting outcome;

u Balance power and include everyone, especially if there are quiet participants, and show that everyone’s view counts, and build trust that the facilitation process is far.

More details of these tools can be found in Community Engagement tools, online, etc.



F iNaLise aGReeMeNts Made

ReVieW

NeXt staGes

What were the final agreement(s) made?

What happened - information, ideas, agreements and commitments?

What are participants going to do next together and individually?

5

6

7

Agreement on a final decision or progress to the learning objective. needs to be made together. this continues to generate ownership, transparency and commitment. sometimes there is

a single agreement that needs to be made for the whole group, when participatory, consensus building tools must be used.

Design a participatory ‘check-in’ at the end, to summarise common understanding of the results of this event. in the case of multi-stakeholder facilitation, the importance of checking

final understanding is increased, so that everyone can recognise the fairness and validity of the process.

Finally, check that everyone knows what their next stage will be and what the group’s next stage will be. this makes follow-up easy, and helps the group move ahead.

5.4WoRKed eXaMPLe oF a MeetiNG PLaN

There are seven key elements of structuring a meeting, shown below. after that, each of these stages will be reviewed and some ways suggested to make them work well. Getting the meeting outcome right is

the essential foundation.


What meetings are Not good for!

Meetings are essential for transparency, equity building and assuring mutual benefit in partnering. Meetings make respected decisions. But meetings are not always the best places for creativity, detail,and thinking through. Small groups or individuals with the necessary expertise can do tasks that require careful thought, new ideas or good details. Make it clear that they are doing that work for the whole group.


LEARNING OBJECTIVE:

‘to plan for resource mobilization for the new community-based children’s centre’FACILITATOR NOTES:

1. check everyone knows everyone else.2. Facilitator clarifies the boundaries of today’s meeting – resource mobilization – and clarifies that everyone

understands the process toward the community-based children’s centre (coming from), and that this is the next step to being able to launch the project (going to).

3. outline the meeting process and how it will lead to the meeting objective and a set of next steps, with clear records and assigned responsibilities.

OUTPUT: ACTIVITIES: VISUAL RECORD: FACILITATOR’S NOTES:

1. Listed the kinds of resources that will be needed (such as, human, financial, material and social)

• Review of existing plans – presentation and questions (needs presenter to be prepared)

• Brainstorm of resources onto a grid with the relevant four or five categories (such as human)

• completed grid• Note of questions

arising from presentation needing external or expert input (flipchart next to grid)

• Prepare the person presenting the plans.

• Prepare a grid.• Flipchart ready for

questions

2. identified resources available from within the group

• everybody completes sticky notes with resource and quantity that might be possible

• Paste sticky notes on grid.

• ensure everyone is comfortable with this as a ‘pre-commitment stage’.

• allow a degree of provocation as members discuss with others what might be possible.

3. identified resources that need to be found externally

• discussion of what is missing on the grid – is there an easily available alternative?

• create a numbered list on a flipchart with estimate of quantities.

• Need to ensure that as much as possible is sourced from within the group!

4. decided which members will try and bring what resources within the group

• add member names and possible numbers of specific items on a list, going through each sticky note in turn.

• create a numbered and named list on a flipchart.

• if there is a resource that more than one group can contribute, have equitable discussion of who should contribute what.

5. decided on a working group to find ways to access external resources

• ask volunteers to form a group. allow ten minutes to plan a couple of next stages.

• Names on flipchart; later report back with at least two next stages and persons responsible.

• ensure that the group has a note-taker and someone who can help guide the conversation.

6. Agreed when internal resource commitments must be made

• ask the remainder to plan how the partnership should approach each member to ask for these resources.

• allow ten minutes to plan a couple of next stages.

• Names on flipchart: later report back with at least two next stages and persons responsible.

• ensure that the group has a note-taker and someone who can help guide the conversation.

7. Planned general objective and date for the next meeting.

• everyone together after reporting back on the planned next stages.

• Diaries and flipchart • add in the review of commitments.

table 3. Worked example of a meeting plan



6.1What is NeGotiatioN?

Negotiation is the process by which two or more parties, having both common and diverging interests, communicate to reach an agreement.

True partnership becomes a reality through interest-based negotiation. innovative and equitable negotiation

allows a partnership to be built with genuine shared ownership and the resources, relevance and commitment to succeed. More powerful or impatient representatives are likely to take short cuts in interest-based negotiation, but the resultant partnerships will be less robust and less likely to succeed.

6.1 What is negotiation?6.2 Five negotiation styles6.3 Understanding ‘interests’6.4 Interest-based negotiation6.5 Top tips to succeed6.6 Approaches to building consensus6.7 Tools for consensus building

OVERVIEW


The two scenarios below describe two approaches a staff member called Chris (the representative for his organisation) tried out. Chris liked to get his own way…

the facilitator’s role requires the enabling of ‘win-win’ negotiations; asking good questions, opening up careful exploration of partner organisations’ motivations and needs, and helping people to create beneficial, alternative and innovative solutions. as well as facilitating a good process, partner representatives need coaching so that they are able and confident to negotiate like this.

Negotiation was chris’ big strength, and the progress of his career had definitely been assisted by his talents in this area. he liked to overstate his position and then, with a flair for the dramatic, concede item by item until he arrived at the end game with the very same wins he had privately sought from the outset. Whether the other party left the meeting satisfied was of little concern.

an alternative a style he found himself increasingly adopting with local communities and government officials, was to negotiate by proactively trying to satisfy his opponent’s hidden interests, not just his own. he found that with a few carefully chosen questions he could quickly move from the opening statements and, often hostile, demands of his adversaries to their deeper, underlying motivations and interests. From this it was a relatively small step to demonstrate that he or his company was in a position to contribute to meeting these interests, not in the exact way originally conceived, but with an alternative solution that still met with their satisfaction.

win - lose win - win

Guidance Note 6: NeGotiatioN aNd coNseNsUs BUiLdiNG 6


The five ‘negotiation styles’ and their likely results are as follows:

(no-win no-lose half half)

(lose-lose)

(win-lose)

(win-win)

(lose-win)

6.2FiVe NeGotiatioN stYLes

discussion questionsAll of these five approaches may have been experienced in our personal and work lives.

? can you think of some examples?

? Can you think why some of the negotiation styles will not lead to good results, as defined above?

j

m

k

n

l

surrender:

compromise:

fight:

integrate:

avoid:

play down differences and emphasise similarities to satisfy the concerns of other party. This approach (also known as the ‘conflict absorber’) will not create innovation, does not expect or create respect, and the partners’ whose interests have been lost, will be poor contributors to a shared project.

both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. this is not the best approach to negotiation because the cost of the deal is too high compared with the gain or ‘win’. compromise can lead to unsustainable partnering because no partner’s interests are truly met, and there is no pressure to create innovative approaches.

all out to win ‘their’ objectives, ignoring the needs and expectations of other parties. this is the ‘win at any cost’ approach. as with surrender, this negotiation results in no innovation, no trust, and no respect. the other partners simply will not contribute (or will have been coerced into contribution). dominant individuals may use this approach, but in a voluntary partnering process this has no value.

a commitment to finding a genuine way to sustainable, mutual benefit. it may involve change (and cost) for each organisation, and requires trust and openness. an integrating approach may involve confrontation, and should lead to problem solving. Because genuinely win-win solutions are not obvious, a shared desire for win-win is the most likely approach to lead to creativity and innovation. integrating insists that the agreement results in all parties having genuine and meaningful benefit.

ignoring, postponing the issue or simply withdrawing. this approach is more common than it should be, especially if there is any difficult history. It leads to no partners and no partnership.

Guidance Note 6: NeGotiatioN aNd coNseNsUs BUiLdiNG


this grid shows very simply that great negotiation cares about ‘my needs’ and it cares about ‘your needs’. Both partners’ needs matter; the partners respect each other.

integrating does not mean a partner may not have to change! all partnering requires some kind of change and a win-win agreement can require change (this could be anything from using a different kind of reporting form, to doing some capacity building or working to a different time frame). integrating means that the interests of that group are not seen as less important, and that the other partners care about them, and the partners’ shared project will address them.

Part

ners

’ nee

ds a

re m

et

High

Low

Low High

Organisations’ needs are met

AVOIDlose - lose

COMPROMISE1/2 - 1/2

SURRENDERlose - win

FIGHTwin - lose

INTEGRATEwin - win

Figure 1 Five negotiation styles

Guidance Note 6: NeGotiatioN aNd coNseNsUs BUiLdiNG GN6


Key to interest-based negotiation, is understanding the idea of ‘interest’, and distinguishing it from the idea of ‘position’.

6.3UNdeRstaNdiNG ‘ iNteRests ’

The idea of ‘interests’ was first explored in the section on understanding partners (section 2) when looking at motivations and drivers to partnership. this idea helps express that a party’s ‘interest’ is its deeper motivations (priorities, drivers, fears) which underlie what it says is needed for it to be satisfied.

Interests are tied to advantages and benefits.

Interests also reflect an organisation’s claims (what it says about itself), duties (what it is supposed to do), liabilities (responsibilities and obligations to those affected), and rights (what it can ask for or expect).

identify interests by asking questions that explore WhY an organization does or says what it does.

in comparison, a ‘position’ is the public statement of ‘what is wanted’. it is often the first demand or statement made by someone (often presented as non-negotiable and without taking into account any other groups’ needs or desires) at the beginning of a negotiation process. their position may be the result of the organisation’s problem solving before they came to the meeting, or based on an existing pressure, like a grant for a specific programme.

the ‘positions’ that organisation come with initially, can often seem to be quite different and possibly irreconcilable. But through digging deeper and deeper below the initially expressed positions, it is possible to enable a process whereby the deeper motivations, hopes and fears of an organisation or a group can be uncovered. these are often much wider than the initially stated positions. in this process it often becomes clear that while groups may hold different positions, there may be common or complementary deeper interests which are shared.

identify position by what an organization says it wants.

interest position

Positions

Individual interests

Shared interests

Figure 2 explore broad interests that underlie narrow positions



6.4iNteRest-Based NeGotiatioN

The facilitator has responsibility to build a safe process for partners for interest-based negotiation. this responsiblity involves explaining what is happening to the group, and allowing them to lead each other

through it. to do this, it is helpful for the facilitator to deliberately encourage the group in the following behaviours.

Behaviours that enable interest-based negotiation:ubeing prepared to reveal and respond to emotions

uperceived willingness to be flexible, and allow give and take

urecognising that the relationship is just as important as the task or subject

uasking genuine questions

uoffering or agreeing to compromise

ugiving useful examples or evidence to illustrate suggestions or perspective

ubeing open to new solutions.

Win-win means finding energy, time, opportunity and curiosity to find the Both/And solution.

Focus on revealing underlying interests rather than positions. this allows the group to develop deeper connections and ensures partners are engaged and satisfied.

Reach agreementthat satisfies interests and adds value for all parties. this achieves a solid basis for the partnership.

Build trustthrough mutual understanding and meaningful communication. this creates good working relationships.

Widen the optionsfor a solution through creativity and lateral thinking that comes from joint problem solving. this allows the group to build innovation, creativity and commitment.



6.5PaRtNeRshiP BRoKeR’s tiPs

jEnsure safety: Work to create a warm and relaxed atmosphere likely to encourage participants to speak freely, including body language and local cultural needs or practices. it may also require some kind of commitment confidentiality within the group.

kDevelop the end goal: Reach early agreement over an overarching theme to frame the negotiations, expressed in language that all understand. this may eventually develop into a common vision for the partnership.

lInquire widely: accept a period of broad enquiry, particularly in the early stages of negotiations (use skill and judgement about when to slow down and ask questions, and when to speed up on towards mor tangible outcomes in meetings).

mSummarise: Where appropriate, periodically summarise the main issues (expressed where possible as underlying issues) of each party. this builds a common understanding and keeps the negotiations moving forward. it may also help to defuse obstinate behaviour. always use good documentation, in particular using good visuals (for example, flipcharts pasted on the walls).

nUse open questions: apply active listening skills and use open questions.

oRehearse a framework for questions: think how to ask successively deeper layers of questions, using objective (factual), reflective (how it affects organisations) and interpretive questions (what it might mean), especially before moving to decisions.

pBring interests into the open: take every opportunity to pick up on and exploit ‘clues’ as to the underlying interests of different parties.

When things get difficult:

qIntervene: When discussions seem to be going round in circles (‘talk, talk, talk’), offer to take stock of the situation from each party’s perspective (see 2. above). Take care to reflect carefully those perspectives. Launch a new question.

rUse the parking lot: Look for ways to ‘temporarily’ park particularly difficult issues and shift to more fruitful topics.

sDelegate: There may be technical or difficult issues. Get together a sub-group, of these representatives or others, to enter into joint-problem solving aimed at satisfying the underlying interests of the parties, to bring possibilities back to this group. Just ensure each possible partner knows what is happening (full transparency).

Don’t: Jump into a conversation with a proposed solution or spend time preparing a detailed design of a ‘complete solution’. instead, always listen to others and look for solutions that satisfy underlying interests.

extra areas of questioning to help develop interest-based negotiation are included under ‘double accountability’ in section 2.5.



6.6aPPRoaches to BUiLdiNG coNseNsUs

there are many ways of building consensus and taking decisions. they range from a verbal question (‘do we all agree to this?’) to voting. in the middle are facilitated, participatory ways of understanding how closely a proposal meets different partners’ needs and wants.

The diamond of participatory decision making

Developing a partnership is in many ways a similar process to forming a team, and the usual ‘forming - storming - norming - performing’ process will occur as the partners get to know each other and figure out how to work together. Just as storming happens in the process of team building, difficulty is likely to occur in the midst of the multi-stakeholder process. this can be uncomfortable, tense and difficult, depending on the nature of the problems being tackels and the divergent views.

the aim in consensus building for a collaboration is generally not to find a majority decision (voting), but to work so that everybody can be committed - with enthusiasm if a win-win approach, or with understanding and acceptance of the price paid for the greater goal, if more of a compromise.

The facilitator needs to provide strong leadership in these times, both to give participants confidence to carry on, and not to take short-cuts. a short-cut is likely to have too many compromises to carry much weight, and will not lead to a robust decision at the end. the process can be viewed as a diamond, as follows, and can happen over time or just within a single meeting.

in forming a partnership, strong consensus is essential to a plan. in a coalition, a general consensus is likely to be strong enough for success. the ‘diamond of participatory decision making’ provides a helpful way to understand consensus building.

think aboutNow review the sections on building a partnership and reflect on your own context.

What opportunities do you have to develop a plan for interest-based negotiation?

What skills do you need to practice?

time

Diamond of participatory decision making Based on the highly recommended book by Sam Kaner (2007), ‘Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making’. 2nd Edn, John Wiley and Sons.

A need for new answers

Decisions that work

hopecuriosity

questioning

expectationclarity

confi dence

dive

rgin

gconverging

confusionworry

T

he“g

roan

zon

e”Decisions won’t stick

Not understanding each other Making sense together

Seeing better possibilities

Wondering if we’llever get there

Finding different ways of thinking and seeing



GN6

6-9 The SquareStockley ParkUxbridge, MiddlesexUB11 1FWUnited Kingdom

World Vision International800 West Chestnut AvenueMonrovia, CA 91016-3198USAwvi.org

Chemin de Balexert 7-9Case Postale 545CH-1219 ChâtelaineSwitzerland

33 Rue Livingstone1000 BrusselsBelgiumwveurope.org

New York, NY 10017USA

Karen Road, Off Ngong RoadP.O. Box 133 - 00502 KarenNairobiKenya

P.O. Box 5903Weltevredenpark, 1715South Africa

Hann Maristes Scat Urbam n° R21BP: 25857 - Dakar FannDakarSenegal

Bangkok Business Centre13th Floor, 29 Sukhumvit 63 (Soi Ekamai) Klongton Nua, Wattana, Bangkok 10110Thailand

750B Chai Chee Road #03-02 Technopark @ Chai CheeSingapore 469002

Latin America and Caribbean

P.O. Box:133-2300

Frente al Centro Comercial El PuebloBarrio TournónSan JoséCosta Ricavisionmundial.org

Middle East and Eastern Europe

P.O Box 289792084 NicosiaCyprusmeero.worldvision.org